STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE   FACULTY  OF   POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  LXXV]  [Number  2 

Whole  Number  178 


NEW  YORK  AS    AN    EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURY  MUNICIPALITY 

1731-1776 


BY 

GEORGE  WILLIAM  EDWARDS,  Ph.D. 

Instructor  in  History,  Stuyvesant  High  School 
New  York  City 


THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 

LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  LTD. 

1917 


Columbia 

FACULTY   OF    POLITICAL    SCIENCE 

B.  Moore,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  International  Uw  ?  W  'A  Dunninf  fT  n  'p'T7'     *'< 
History  and  Political  Philosophy     F  H  Giddfn^s   if'  n     pUDfnmS'  l-L.D.,  Professor  of 
Clarlr     I  T   D      P,-«f»cc         t  r>  V  •     i   A  ljiaaings>  i-L.D.,  Professor  of  Sociology.      T.  B 
l/iarjc,  U*U.,  Piofessor  of  Political  Economy.      T  H   Knhin<jnn     Ph  n     P,  f     J      , 
Historv     TT  P    Qparror    PV,  r^    «    r  r  V.  ,.  r'       Kooicson,  rn.u.,  notesaor  ol 

^&ofp^S^^^^^S^^'p  H-  1-  Moore   Ph.D., 
and  Dean^  W.  R.  Shepherd3;  P&'lfiZSS^1^!  ftSlSf  fiSSTK 

fessor  of  History.     G   W.  Botsford,  Ph.D.,  Professor  ofnislorv.     V   G   Simkh^itch" 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Economic  History.      B    T    Devine    T  I   n      P    r 


Economics.     C.  H    Hayes,  Ph.D.,  Asso          ft       so7/  of  H^  " 


of  H  A    A 


-w  D.  Guthrie 
oLf 

soryE  R'  L"  ' 

Ph  D     Pr5;«      C^d?OCk,'  ^l1:0"  Associate  Professor  of  Statistics.     A    C.  McGiffert 
well    Ph  D   T        Chu''clVHlstoJ7  in    Union  Theological  Seminary      W   W    Rock 
'  '  '  Sr  -  ' 


well    Ph  D  on        eoogca       eminary      W   W    Rock 

D  2'  Mu^'ev  Ph  D'  I±STr  P'  ?hurch/!istol-y  S  Union  Theo'logicli  ScmTnarv. 
pVofe^^u'bHc'Law  TR  Po0wenr?hDiSTy-  -^  ?'  ^^  Ph.D.,  Assistant 
Law  H  L  MrRflin  Ph  n  P  f  'r  >,  •'  Associate  Professor  of  Constitutional 

p-  D  e 


SCHEME   OF  INSTRUCTION 
GROUP  I.    HISTORY  AND  POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY 

GROUP  II      PUBLIC  LAW  AND  COMPARATIVE  JURISPRUDENCE 
GROUP  III.    ECONOMICS  AND  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  LXXV]  [Number  2 

Whole  Number  178 


NEW  YORK  AS   AN    EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURY  MUNICIPALITY 

1731-1776 


BY 

GEORGE  WILLIAM  EDWARDS,  Ph.D. 

Instructor  in  History,  Stuyvesant  High  School 
New  York  City 


Nnu  tJork 
THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 

LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  LTD. 

1917 


COPYRIGHT,  1917 

BY 
GEORGE  WILLIAM  EDWARDS 


TO  MY  MOTHER 
PAULINE  E.  EDWARDS 


UNIVERSITY  OP  CALIFORNIA 
SANTA  BARBARA 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  UNDER  MONTGOMERIE  CHARTER 

Importance  of  the  period  between  1731  and  1776 13 

Political,  social  and  economic  changes  in  England  ......  14 

Their  effect  upon  New  York 15 

The  Montgomerie  Charter,  1731 17 

The  need  of  a  new  grant 17 

Means  to  secure  it  from  the  governor 18 

Validity  of  the  charter  questioned  .    • 20 

The  duties  of  mayor  not  extensive 22 

Common  Council  attempts  to  deprive  him  of  fees 23 

Mayor  fails  to  exercise  powers  as  water  bailiff 24 

The  position  of  deputy  mayor 25 

The  recorder's  functions  mainly  legal 25 

His  two-fold  position  ... 26 

Common  Council  seeks  to  despoil  him  of  certain  powers  and  fees  27 

The  office  of  common  clerk                    28 

Legislative  powers  of  Common  Council 29 

Changes  in  judicial  procedure  after  1731 31 

Popular  hostility  toward  judiciary       33 

Relations  of  city  to  province.  .    .   .    „ 34 

Assembly  at  times  hostile • 35 

Favorable  attitude  of  executive 39 

Examples  of  judicial  interference 39 

CHAPTER  II 
POLITICAL  ASPECTS 

Political  importance  of  the  city  of  New  York 42 

Qualifications  of  freeholders  and  freemen 43 

Extent  of  the  suffrage.       •  45 

Conduct  of  a  municipal  election                                      47 

Political  evils  , 48 

Voters  bribed,  open  ballot  used.  .....     '.........  49 

Elections  managed  by  the  aldermen 49 

Reforms  instituted  by  legislature  in  1771 51 

207]  7 


8  CONTENTS  [208 

PAGE 

Economic  divisions  of  the  population 51 

Importance  of  the  merchants 51 

Power  of  crown  officers  and  of  landowners  insignificant.  ...  52 

Prominent  position  of  lawyers 52 

Middle  class  composed  of  freemen  and  freeholders  53 

The  "  mechanics"  • .  54 

Denominational  groups  .  .  .  • 54 

Centralized  organization  of  Anglicanism 54 

Its  rival,  the  Presbyterian  Church 55 

Decline  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 55 

Other  denominations 57 

Influence  of  these  interests  on  the  city  government 58 

CHAPTER  III 
TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 

Regulation  of  trade 61 

Influence  of  mercantilism  on  governmental  policies 61 

Extent  of  commerce  of  New  York •  62 

Packing  of  meat 63 

Province  unwilling  to  enact  legislation  on  bolting  of  flour  .  .  65 

Prices  of  bread  fixed  by  the  city 67 

Control  of  the  liquor  traffic 68 

Markets  of  the  city 70 

Demolition  and  erection  of  markets 71 

Terms  of  leasing 77 

Causes  of  rising  cost  of  living 79 

Rural  opposition  to  economic  legislation  of  the  city 81 

Freemen  of  the  city 85 

Meaning  of  freemanship.  .  . 86 

Development  of  manufacturing 87 

Growing  importance  of  artisans 89 

Dominant  position  of  merchants 91 

Conflicting  economic  interests  in  New  York 93 

CHAPTER  IV 
CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 

The  administration  of  poor  relief 96 

Problem  increased  by  heavy  immigration 96 

Organization  of  the  citv  vestry       97 

Collection  and  distribution  of  the  poor  tax 97 

Erection  of  a  poorhouse 98 


209]                                        CONTENTS  9 

FACE 

Duties  of  the  keeper  99 

Criticism  of  the  administration ico 

Private  charities  extensive 100 

Protection  of  public  health  .  .  .  , 100 

Quarantine  established  en  Bedloe's  Island 101 

House  for  persons  with  contagious  diseases  also  erected  .  .  .  101 

Municipal  aid  given  to  the  New  York  Hospital  . 102 

Administration  of  conection 102 

Classes  of  prisoners 102 

City  Hall  used  as  a  prison  until  the  erection  of  the  New  Gaol  .  103 

Building  of  the  bridewell .  .  .  103 

Duties  of  the  keepers 104 

Prison  conditions  unsatisfactory 106 

Colonial  punishments 107 

CHAPTER  V 
KEEPING  THE  PEACE 

Disorderly  elements  of  the  population 109 

Military  forces  cause  riots 109 

Convicts  transported 112 

"Negio  Conspiracy"  of  1741 114 

ENtent  of  crime  in  the  city 117 

Police  legislation 118 

Organization  of  the  "  watch  " 119 

Duties  of  the  constables 120 

System  of  watchirg  frequently  charged 121 

Paid  standing  force  finally  established 124 

Provision  for  street  illumination 124 

Supplementary  forces  to  l.eep  the  peace 127 

CHAPTER  VI 
FIRE  PROTECTION 

Fire  hazards  in  the  city 128 

Storage  of  combustibles 128 

Legislation  to  prevent  fire 130 

City  ordinances  on  chimney  sweeping 130 

Provincial  laws  en  building  material  arouse  opposition  ....  131 

Fire  engines  secured  from  England • 132 

Beginning  of  a  volunteer  force 135 

Duties  and  privileges  of  members 136 


10  CONTENTS  [210 

PAGE 

Water  supply 137 

Regulation  of  wells  and  pumps.  .    • 138 

Attempt  made  to  establish  a  reservoir  system .  139 

CHAPTER  VII 
REGULATION  OF  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

Public  land 142 

Land  rights  denned  in  the  Montgomerie  Charter.  ......  142 

Boundaries  of  the  city;  ward  divisions 143 

Controversy  over  the  Harlem  line 144 

Leasing  of  municipal  property 147 

Disposal  of  water  lots  criticized •  150 

Docks 151 

Great  Dock  improved  after  1750 ....  152 

Albany  Pier  and  Corporation  Dock  erected -152 

Terms  of  the  dock  leases 154 

Difficulties  between  the  dockmasters  and  the  city 155 

Regulation  of  dock  rates 157 

Building  of  bridges  across  the  Harlem  River 159 

Monopoly  of  Philipse  broken  by  erection  of  free  bridge  .  .  .  159 

Plans  for  a  bridge  at  Morrisania 160 

Maintenance  of  roadways 161 

Provincial  regulation  of  highways 162 

Administration  transferred  from  surveyors  to  Common  Council  164 

Municipal  regulation  of  streets ...  166 

Cleaning  of  streets 168 

Bowling  Green 171 

CHAPTER  VIII 
FERRIES  AROUND  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

Municipal  ferry  rights  denned  in  the  Montgomerie  Charter  and  in 

the  act  of  1732    .   .          172 

Opposition  of  Brooklyn 173 

Case  of  Remsen  vs.  New  York •    .  175 

The  ferry  across  the  East  River 178 

Terms  of  the  ferry  lease 178 

Difficulties  with  the  lessees 179 

New  ferry  house  built 181 

Division  of  the  ferry  franchises 183 

Ferries  across  the  North  River •   •       185 

Private  ferries  established 187 

Dangers  of  traveling  by  water 188 


21 1  ]                                         CONTENTS  n 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  IX 
FINANCE 

Expenses  of  operating  the  city  government 190 

Financial  administration 192 

Qualifications  of  the  chamberlain 192 

Collection  of  corporate  debts 193 

Duties  of  assessors  and  collectors 195 

Weakness  of  the  city's  financial  system 196 

Sources  of  revenue 196 

Franchises  and  improved  property  of  the  corporation 196 

Direct  taxes  authorized  by  the  province  197 

Limitations  on  the  taxing  power  of  the  city 198 

Bonds  issued  because  of  war 201 

Lotteries  authorized  for  erecting  public  buildings. 203 

Bills  of  credit  used  to  finance  the  municipal  water  works  .  .  .  205 

Financial  status  of  New  York  City  at  close  of  colonial  period  .    .    .  205 


CHAPTER  I 

ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  UNDER  THE  MONTGOM- 
ERIE  CHARTER 

IN  Part  One  was  described  the  development  of  the 
city  from  quaint  New  Amsterdam  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury into  the  more  populous  New  York  of  the  eighteenth. 
The  following  pages  resume  the  thread  of  the  narrative  in 
the  year  1731  and  continue  the  study  of  the  corporation  of 
the  city  of  New  York  into  the  momentous  year  1776. 
These  dates  mark  a  definite  epoch  in  the  history  of  muni- 
cipal government  in  New  York.  The  year  1731  offers  an 
appropriate  beginning,  for  then  the  city  secured  the  Mont- 
gomerie  Charter  which  was  to  remain  in  force  for  over  a 
century.  About  this  time,  also,  the  corporation  of  New 
York  inaugurated  several  policies  now  considered  impor- 
tant because  of  their  bearing  on  the  history  of  municipal 
development  in  the  United  States.  We  may  here  mention 
the  levying  of  direct  taxes,  the  securing  of  fire  engines, 
and  the  acquisition  of  title  to  full  riparian  rights  around 
lower  Manhattan  Island.  The  year  1776  is  of  course  sig- 
nificant as  the  close  of  the  colonial  period  and  the  date  of 
Independence.  Though  the  city  fathers  continued  to  hold 
sessions  until  almost  the  middle  of  that  year,  ruthless  war 
soon  paralyzed  regular  municipal  administration. 

A  glance  at  the  history  of  the  mother  country  shows  this 

to  have  been  a  period  of  notable  progress  abroad.    Customs 

and  policies  of  former  days  were  rapidly  yielding  to  newer 

influences.     This  epoch  witnessed  the  final  struggle  of  the 

213]  13 


I4          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [214 

Stuarts  and  the  establishing  of  the  Hanoverian  rulers,  the 
passing  of  Walpole's  peaceful  administration  and  the  in- 
auguration of  Pitt's  imperialistic  policy.  Then  followed 
the  conflict  with  Spain,  the  contest  of  the  Austrian  Succes- 
sion and  the  terrible  Seven  Years'  War.  War  had  then 
come  to  girdle  the  world,  for  these  sanguinary  struggles 
were  waged  in  almost  every  land  and  on  almost  every  sea. 
Out  of  this  time  of  stress  England  emerged  with  her  colo- 
nial empire  secure  and  with  a  well-developed  naval  policy. 
Important  internal  changes  also  occurred.  The  corruption 
of  Walpole's  ministry  was  slowly  giving  ground  before 
democratic  principles,  as  seen  later  in  the  Wilkes'  affair  and 
in  the  episode  of  the  Junius  letters.  Social  progress  of  the 
time  is  apparent  in  the  work  of  the  Wesleys,  of  George 
Whitefield,  and  of  other  Methodists,  for  the  uplift  of  the 
lower  classes,  and  in  the  efforts  of  John  Howard  for  the 
betterment  of  conditions  in  prisons.  Improvement  in  com- 
merce and  in  industry  was  also  working  a  profound  trans- 
formation in  England. 

These  movements  were  not  without  their  effects  upon 
the  municipality  of  New  York.  "  Bonnie  Prince  Charlie," 
the  young  Stuart  Pretender,  had  followers  even  in  this  dis- 
tant land,  although  they  were  rather  severely  handled  by 
the  city  magistrates,  who  on  one  occasion  sentenced  a  Jaco- 
bite to  the  whipping-post.1  The  European  struggles  brought 
into  the  hearts  of  New  York  citizens  fear  of  an  attack  by 
French  fleets.  This  fear,  caused  by  the  city's  exposed  sit- 
uation, is  reflected  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council 
in  an  order  of  February  19,  1745,  "that  in  Case  of  Any 
Emergency  that  Cannot  at  present  be  foreseen  by  Reason 
of  the  City  being  Attacked  by  an  Enemy  Or  by  Reason  of 
any  other  Unforeseen  Accident,  That  the  Deputy  Clerk  of 

1  Minutes  of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  May  8,  1745.     Most  of 
the  records  of  this  court  are  in  the  criminal  court  building. 


215]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  1$ 

this  Board  Use  his  best  Endeavours  to  Secure  the  Records 
of  this  City  by  Removing  them  to  Such  place  Within  this 
Province  as  he  Shall  Think  most  Safe  and  proper."  *  The 
tidings  of  Braddock's  defeat,  the  loss  of  Oswego,  and  the 
massacre  at  Fort  William  Henry  shocked  the  inhabitants, 
the  city  having  been  free  from  the  horrors  of  Indian  war- 
fare since  the  Dutch  period. 

Yet  such  dangers  did  not  check  the  general  progress  of 
the  community.  Commercial  prosperity  in  those  years  was 
creating  great  family  fortunes.  The  growing  movement 
for  wider  democracy  met  with  enthusiastic  response.  Brit- 
ish newspapers  describing  the  latest  escapades  of  John 
Wilkes  and  the  Junius  letters  printed  in  pamphlet  form 
were  eagerly  read  by  citizens  of  New  York.  Although  the 
riotous  scenes  of  the  Stamp  Act  troubles  appeared  to  the 
staid  city  fathers  to  be  the  result  of  an  excess  of  democracy, 
nevertheless  the  same  body  ordered  the  common  council 
chamber  to  be  adorned  with  a  portrait  of  William  Pitt  and 
gave  ready  permission  for  the  erection  of  his  statue  in  Wall 
Street.2  The  influence  of  Methodism  was  also  felt,  for 
George  Whitefield  himself  preached  in  New  York  before 
large  congregations.8  Nor  was  progress  in  culture  want- 
ing. King's  College  was  chartered  in  1754,  while  earlier 
in  the  same  year  had  been  founded  the  New  York  Society 
Library.4  Lectures  on  scientific  topics,  and  others  illus- 
trated with  stereopticon  views,  entertained  the  public,  even 
in  colonial  days.5  The  theatre  was  also  a  popular  form  of 

1  Minutes  of  The  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York  (N.  Y., 
1905),  vol.  v,  p.  146. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  20,  220. 

1  New-York  Weekly  Post-Boy,  Dec.  16,  1754, 

4  Keep,  History  of  the  New  York  Society  Library  (N.  Y.,  1908), 
PP.  123-147. 

*  New-York  Mercury,  Jan.,  Feb.,  1762. 


i6 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 


[216 


amusement,  and,  though  the  plays  were  usually  of  a  lighter 
vein,  serious  dramatic  performances,  such  as  "  Cato," 
"  Richard  III  "  and  "  Romeo  and  Juliet,"  were  presented. 
As  a  result  of  these  conditions,  the  years  preceding  the 
passage  of  the  Stamp  Act  marked  a  relatively  high  point  in 
the  general  development  of  New  York,  and  have  been  re- 
ferred to  as  the  "  Golden  Age  "  in  the  history  of  the  city. 
In  this  period,  according  to  Judge  Thomas  Jones,  a  con- 
temporary historian,  "  the  Colony  was  extending  its  trade, 
encouraging  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  cultivating  its  lands. 
Its  inhabitants  were  daily  increasing  in  riches,  in  wealth 
and  opulence.1  The  growth  of  the  city  is  indicated  by 
the  following  statistics,  showing  population  during  the 
years  under  review : 

WHITE  AND  BLACK  POPULATION  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK  BETWEEN 
1731   AND   1771  * 


YEAR 

WHITES 

BLACKS 

TOT-VL 

1731 

7045 

»577 

8622 

1737 

8945 

1719 

10664 

1746 

9273 

2444 

II7I7 

»749 

10926 

2368 

13294 

1756 

10768 

2272 

13040 

1771 

18726 

3^37 

21863 

However  interesting  a  study  of  the  social  life  of  early 
New  York  might  be,  we  must,  in  this  work,  confine  our- 
selves chiefly  to  a  consideration  of  governmental  activity. 

1  Jones,  History  of  New  York  during  the  Revolutionary  War  (N.  Y., 
1879),  vol.  i,  p.  i. 

1 0'Callaghan,   Documentary   History   of   the   State    of   New    York 
(Albany,  1850),  vol.  i,  pp.  471-474. 


217] 


ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT 


In  this  connection,  we  shall  devote  our  attention  first  to  the 
history  and  working  of  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  then  to 
the  organization  of  the  city  government,  and  lastly  to  the 
relations  of  the  municipality  with  the  province  of  New 
York. 

The  last  and  most  important  charter  of  the  colonial 
period  was  issued  to  the  city  of  New  York  by  Governor 
John  Montgomerie  in  1731.  This  instrument,  which  re- 
mained in  force  for  over  one  hundred  years,  stands  as  a 
noteworthy  document  in  the  history  of  American  municipal 
institutions.  Chancellor  James  Kent,  in  1836,  observed: 
"  It  remains  to  this  day  with  much  of  its  original  form  and 
spirit,  after  having  received  by  statute  such  modifications 
and  such  a  thorough  enlargement  in  its  legislative,  exec- 
utive and  judicial  branches  as  were  best  adapted  to  the 
genius  and  wants  of  the  people."  x 

Although  the  city  of  New  York  had  received  several 
grants  prior  to  1731,  there  were  good  reasons  why  another 
was  deemed  necessary  by  the  prudent  city  fathers.  One 
was  their  uneasiness,  born  of  the  knowledge  that  Governor 
Dongan  had  granted  the  first  English  municipal  charter 
under  the  proprietary  seal  of  the  Duke  of  York  and  that 
Governor  Lord  Cornbury  had  issued  an  instrument  only  in 
his  own  name.  A  weakness  inherent  in  both  patents,  there- 
fore, was  that  neither  had  been  bestowed  by  grace  of  the 
reigning  sovereign,  and  thus  they  were  not  in  a  strict  sense 
royal  grants.2  Another  motive  for  a  new  charter  was  a  de- 
sire on  the  part  of  the  city  authorities  to  secure  a  number 
of  additional  concessions.  These,  accordingly,  to  the  num- 
ber of  eighteen  were  carefully  itemized  in  a  petition  ad- 

1Kent,  Charter  of  the  City  of  New  York  with  Notes  (N.  Y.,  1851), 
pp.  212-213. 

2  Documents  Relating  to  the  History  of  the  State  of  New  York 
(Albany,  1877-1883),  vol.  iv,  p.  812;  vol.  v,  p.  369. 


iS          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [2ig 

dressed,  under  date  of  August  3,  1730,  to  Governor  Mont- 
gomerie.1    Chief  among  them  were  the  following: 

(1)  The  extension  of  the  boundaries  of  the  city  to  four 
hundred  feet  beyond  low-water  mark,  on  the  Hudson  and 
East  Rivers,  around  lower  Manhattan  Island. 

(2)  The  sole  power  of  establishing  ferries  and  of  erect- 
ing docks,  together  with  all  profits  accruing  from  such  en- 
terprises. 

(3)  A  division  of  the  city  into  seven  wards,  instead  of 
six,  as  provided  in  the  Dongan  Charter. 

(4)  Certain  judicial  powers   for  the  city  government, 
namely  that  the  mayor,  recorder  and  aldermen  be  consti- 
tuted justices  of  the  peace,  empowered  to  hear  all  pleas  of 
forty  shillings  and  under;  the  same  officers  also  to  possess 
the  power  of  holding  a  quarter  sessions  of  the  peace. 

(5)  Ordinances  of  the  common  council,  the  legislative 
body  of  the  city  government,  to  remain  in  force  for  a  year, 
instead  of  for  three  months,  as  heretofore. 

(6)  The  mayor  to  be  allowed  to  select  a  deputy. 

(7)  The  offices  of  mayor,  recorder,  sheriff,  coroner  and 
town  clerk  hereafter  to  be  elective  instead  of  appointive. 

All  of  these  proposals,  save  the  right  to  elect  municipal 
officers,  were  granted  by  the  governor  and  his  council  and 
were  included  in  the  new  charter.  But  the  city  was  not 
given  these  valuable  considerations  gratuitously,  for  Mont- 
gomerie,  like  most  colonial  governors,  was  unaccustomed  to 
bestow  favors  without  remuneration.  It  was  generally 
known  that  this  governor  had  voluntarily  exiled  himself 
from  the  Court  of  St.  James's  to  the  "  plantations "  in 
order  to  fill  his  sadly  depleted  purse.2  Therefore,  with  full 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  5-8,  19-22. 

'Wilson,  The  Memorial  History  of  the  City  of  New-York  (N.  Y., 
1892),  vol.  ii,  pp.  179-180. 


2 1 9]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  19 

understanding  of  the  ways  and  means  of  persuading  colo- 
nial governors,  the  common  council,  in  April  1730*  ap- 
pointed a  committee  "  to  Consider,  what  further  and  proper 
Measures  are  Needfull  to  be  pursued  for  Obtaining  the 
Prayer  to  the  said  Petition."  *  At  the  next  meeting  of  the 
board,  the  committee  submitted  its  report,  which  was  forth- 
with approved,  with  the  statement  that  it  was  "  the  Unan- 
imous Opinion  of  this  Court  that  the  sum  of  fourteen  hun- 
dred pounds  will  be  Needfull  to  be  provided  by  this  Cor- 
poration for  Obtaining  the  said  Charter,  and  it  is  hereby 
Order'd  that  the  said  Committee  do  Continue  their  Appli- 
cations for  Obtaining  the  said  Charter."  2 

During  the  summer  of  1730,  Cadwallader  Golden,  scien- 
tist, historian  and,  nearly  half  a  century  afterward,  acting 
executive  of  the  province,  was  engaged  by  Governor  Mont- 
gomerie  to  survey  the  proposed  grant  of  400  feet  around 
lower  Manhattan,  a  task  for  which  he  was  duly  compen- 
sated by  the  corporation.8  In  January  of  the  following 
year,  the  common  council  raised  the  sum  of  £1,000 
through  a  mortgage  on  certain  lands,  and  also  authorized 
an  additional  loan  of  £200.*  Coincident  with  this  financial 
move,  Richard  Bradley,  attorney  general  of  the  province, 
reported  to  the  governor  that  he  "  had  perused  the  Charter 
and  found  nothing  therein  prejudicial  to  the  interest  of  his 
Majesty."5  Therefore  on  February  n,  1731,  the  charter 
was  delivered  with  great  ceremony  to  Mayor  Robert  Lurting 
by  Governor  Montgomerie  in  person.8  For  these  services 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  9.  *Ibid.,  p.  u. 

*Ibid.,  p.  24.  *Ibid.,  pp.  34-35. 

5  The  Colonial  Laws  of  New  York  (Albany,  1894),  vol.  ii,  pp.  575- 
639.  This  volume  contains  a  copy  of  the  Montgomerie  Charter.  The 
original  is  deposited  in  the  New  York  Public  Library. 

•Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  39-41.  As  the  charter  was  formally  delivered 
to  the  corporation  on  this  date,  it  is  preferable  to  consider  1731,  rather 
than  1730,  as  the  year  of  the  granting  of  the  charter. 


20          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [22O 

the  attorney  general  received  from  the  grateful  corporation 
a  substantial  fee.1  Regarding  the  £1,000  raised  by  mort- 
gage, we  must  admit  that  there  is  no  direct  evidence  as  to 
how  it  was  used.  One  may  readily  imagine,  however,  that 
this  tidy  sum  might  well  have  been  regarded  as  a  quiet 
thank  offering  by  a  gratified  corporation  to  the  official 
who  was  publicly  honored  for  all  time  to  come  in  the  be- 
stowing of  his  name  upon  the  new  charter.2 

Although  Montgomerie  nominally  granted  the  charter,  its 
validity  was  open  to  some  question.  To  the  document  was 
affixed  the  great  seal  of  the  province,  and  it  bears  the  sig- 
natures of  Secretary  Frederick  Morris  and  Attorney  Gen- 
eral Richard  Bradley,  but  it  was  never  signed  either  by  the 
governor  or  by  the  British  sovereign.  This  manifest  de- 
fect was  appreciated  both  by  the  municipal  and  by  the  pro- 
vincial officers.  In  an  endeavor  to  strengthen  the  legality 
of  their  grant,  the  aldermen  and  assistants  in  1732  secured 
from  the  provincial  legislature  an  act  confirming  all  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  corporation.  This  act  was  declared 
"  effectual  in  the  Law  against  the  Kings  Majesty,  his  heirs 
and  Successors."  3  When  Governor  William  Cosby,  the 
successor  of  Montgomerie,  sent  this  law  to  the  Board  of 
Trade  in  England,  he  took  the  opportunity  to  assail  the 
charter.  By  the  granting  of  the  water-front  to  the  munici- 
pality, he  argued,  "  his  Majesty's  prerogative  &  interest 
may  be  in  danger  of  suffering,  and  his  ships  stationed  here 
under  a  necessity  of  becoming  petitioners  of  the  Corpora- 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  38-39. 

*  Furman,  Notes,  Geographical  and  Historical  relating  to  the  Town  of 
Brooklyn,  on  Long-Island  (Brooklyn,  1865),  pp.  24-25.  .See  also  a 
pamphlet  entitled  An  Examination  of  the  yalidity  of  the  pretended 
Charters  of  the  Cities  (sic)  of  New  York  (Brooklyn,  1852),  p.  26. 

$  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  752-753.  See  difference  between  royal  and 
parliamentary  charters  in  England.  Dillon,  Commentaries  on  the  Law 
of  Municipal  Corporations  (Boston,  191 1),  vol.  i,  pp.  79-80. 


22 1  ]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  2I 

tion  for  a  convenient  place  to  careen  or  refit."  The  Board 
of  Trade  ordered  a  copy  of  the  charter  sent  to  England, 
but  no  action  seems  to  have  been  taken  in  the  matter. 

Not  even  this  confirmation  by  the  provincial  legislature 
satisfied  the  city  authorities.  They  finally  sought  ratifica- 
tion from  the  king  himself.  Here  Governor  Cosby  thwarted 
them  by  advising  against  confirmation,  and  no  royal  assent 
was  apparently  ever  given  either  to  the  charter  of  Governor 
Montgomerie  or  to  the  confirmatory  act  of  the  general 
assembly. 

In  later  years  the  legality  of  the  Montgomerie  Charter 
was  the  subject  of  active  discussion,  especially  when  the 
limits  of  the  riparian  rights  of  the  city  were  questioned.2 
This  subject  was  carried  before  the  courts  on  more  than 
one  occasion,  until  finally  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of 
New  York  decided  that  the  "  signature  of  the  king  or  gov- 
ernor to  a  patent  or  grant  emanating  from  the  crown  was 
not  necessary  to  its  validity."3 

Except  for  this  omission  of  the  royal  signature,  the 
Montgomerie  Charter  was  similar  in  form  to  that  of  any 
grant  to  an  English  "  borough  "  in  the  eighteenth  century.4 
Following  British  precedent,  the  title  of  incorporation  was 
"  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of 
New  York."  Thus  was  formed  a  body  politic,  composed 
of  the  municipal  officers  and  of  a  limited  number  of  per- 

1 N.  Y.  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  v,  p.  956. 

1  Stiles,  History  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  etc.  (Albany,  1863),  vol.  iii, 
p.  524;  Municipal  Gazette,  June  24,  1846. 

3  Bogardus  vs.  Trinity  Church,  4  Sanford,  ch.  rep.  735.   Judge  Murray 
Hoffman  holds  that  the  "governor  was  authorized  to  grant  and  con- 
vey, and  the  great  seal  of  the  province  was  the  evidence  of  the  transfer." 
Treatise  upon  the  Estate  and  Rights  of  the  Corporation  (N.  Y.,  1862), 
vol.  i,  p.  26;  also  appendix,  p.  xviii. 

4  See  article  by  Fairlie  in  Municipal  Affairs,  vol.  ii,  pp.  341-381. 


22          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [222 

sons  known  as  "  freemen "  and  "  freeholders,"  who  ac- 
cordingly constituted  the  municipal  corporation.1 

The  most  important  member  of  this  corporation  was  the 
mayor,  who,  according  to  the  charter,  was  annually  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor  of  the  province  on  September  29. 
It  was  customary  to  reappoint  an  efficient  mayor,  so  that 
his  tenure  in  the  later  English  period  averaged  seven  con- 
secutive years  of  service.2  It  was  also  the  practice  of  the 
governor  to  choose  an  alderman  for  the  position;  conse- 
quently the  occupants  of  the  mayor's  chair  were  usually 
well  acquainted  at  the  start  with  the  machinery  of  muni- 
cipal government.  Moreover,  the  incumbents  of  the  mayor- 
alty, between  1731  and  1776,  were  almost  always  men  of 
wealth  and  of  good  social  standing.  The  mayor  was  re- 
movable during  his  term  of  office  only  by  order  of  the  gov- 
ernor, but  no  occasion  for  such  action  arose  within  this 
period.  Although  in  many  municipal  corporations  the 
presence  of  the  mayor  has  been  necessary  for  a  legal  meet- 
ing of  the  law-making  body,  this  was  not  true  of  the  com- 
mon council  of  New  York.  The  mayor  possessed  the 
power  to  vote  in  case  of  a  tie,  but  he  had  no  right  to  veto 
acts  of  the  common  council.8 

The  duties  of  the  mayor's  office  were  not  extensive.  Ap- 
propriations ordered  by  the  common  council  were  paid 
from  the  city  treasury  through  his  warrant.  The  mayor's 
power  of  appointment  was  relatively  limited,  for  he  was 
permitted  to  fill  only  minor  positions  such  as  those  of  mar- 

1  The  qualifications  of  the  "  freemen  "  are  described  in  the  chapter  on 
"  Trade  and  Industry." 

'The  following  statements  concerning  the  organization  of  the  city 
government  are  based  mainly  on  a  study  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Common 
Council. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  190,  195,  340.  See  status  of  mayor  as  member  of 
council.  Dillon,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  834-838. 


223]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  23 

shals,  porters,  cartmen,  cullers,  criers  and  scavengers.  He 
was  also  empowered  to  "  Displace  all  or  any  of  them  and 
to  put  others  in  their  room."  * 

The  mayor,  ex  officio,  had  several  other  powers  of  im- 
portance, particularly  that  of  granting  tavern-keepers' 
licenses  and  those  attaching  to  the  offices  of  clerk  of  the 
municipal  markets  and  "water  bailiff."  The  liquor  licenses 
netted  a  large  revenue,  and  in  1736  there  arose  a  prolonged 
controversy  as  to  whether  the  corporation  or  the  mayor 
was  entitled  to  the  receipts.2  Mayor  Paul  Richard  retained 
the  sums  which  he  had  collected,  but  his  action  was  roundly 
denounced  by  his  official  associates,  who  claimed  that  the 
charter  placed  all  such  revenue  at  the  disposal  of  the  com- 
mon council.  John  Cruger,  the  elder,  who  succeeded  Rich- 
ard as  mayor,  continued  to  assert  the  same  right,  although 
it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  he  was  prompted  by  avarice, 
since  he  was  a  wealthy  and  highly  respected  member  of  the 
local  merchant  aristocracy.3  The  same  issue  continued  to 
be  disputed  until  1759,  when  the  corporation  filed  a  bill  in 
the  chancery  court  against  the  estate  of  its  late  mayor,  Ed- 
ward Holland,  "  for  fees  by  him  Received  for  the  Issueing 
of  Lycenses  Granted  to  Retailers  of  Strong  Liquors  within 
this  City  during  his  Mayoralty."  4 

About  the  same  time  that  the  common  council  was  try- 
ing to  deprive  Mayor  Richard  of  fees  received  from  grant- 
ing liquor  licenses,  it  was  also  demanding  the  sums  collected 
by  him  as  clerk  of  the  market.  In  this  capacity,  the  mayor 
had  been  accustomed  to  collect  a  small  fee  for  every  head 
of  cattle  that  was  slaughtered,  and  also  for  sealing  weights 
used  in  the  city  markets.  The  attempt  to  deprive  the  mayor 

1Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  619.  JAf.  C.  C.,  vol  iv,  pp.  317-318. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  116,  323. 

4Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  190.  A  search  of  court  records  in  Albany  and  in 
New  York  City  failed  to  disclose  the  papers  relating  to  this  case. 


24          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [224 

of  these  collections  was  scarcely  defensible,  for  the  Mont- 
gomerie  Charter  expressly  conferred  upon  him  full  "Au- 
thority to  do  and  Execute  .  .  .  whatsoever  to  the  Office  of 
Clerk  of  the  Market  there  doth  Shall  or  may  belong  with- 
out any  hindrance."  x  Despite  this  clause,  an  ordinance 
was  passed  in  November,  1735,  forbidding  the  mayor  "  to 
Intermeddle  with  the  Receipt  of  any  Dutys,  Fees  or  Profitts, 
or  take  any  money  of  any  Butchers,  or  any  Other  persons," 
save  for  sealing  weights  and  measures.2 

Every  mayor,  in  turn,  stoutly  attacked  this  ordinance, 
but  the  common  council  continued  to  reenact  it,  and  occa- 
sionally the  dispute  reached  the  courts.3  The  controversy 
dragged  on  until,  by  1760,  the  corporation  found  itself 
seeking  settlement  with  the  estates  of  three  deceased 
mayors.4  A  compromise  was  finally  effected,  whereby  one- 
half  of  the  money  collected  by  former  mayors  was  ordered 
returned,  and  an  explanatory  clause  to  the  city  charter  was 
sought  to  avoid  future  difficulties.5  The  entire  subject  of 
licenses  was  eventually  adjusted,  by  allowing  the  mayor  a 
fixed  sum  of  £125  a  year,  as  a  perquisite  of  his  office.6  In 
addition,  he  was  permitted  to  retain  four  shillings  for  every 
liquor  license  issued. 

The  mayor  also  held  the  office  of  "  Bailif  and  Conser- 
vator of  the  water  of  the  North  and  East  Rivers."  7  This 
title  was  similar  to  that  bestowed  upon  the  mayor  of  any 

lCol.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  618.  *Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  291-295. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  281,  325;  vol.  vi,  p.  96. 

'Ibid.,  p.  209.  5 Ibid.,  p.  262. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  359-360.  The  office  of  clerk  of  the  market  was  finally  separ- 
ated from  that  of  mayor  by  an  act  of  April  9,  1813;  ch.  86,  sec.  168. 
Kent,  Charter  of  New  York,  p.  251.  A  similar  controversy  between 
mayor  and  council  occurred  in  Albany.  Munsell,  Collections  of  Albany, 
vol.  i,  p.  142. 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  618. 


225]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  2$ 

port  town  in  England,  and  was  merely  nominal.  The 
duties  of  the  position  may  be  likened  to  those  exercised  by 
customs  and  quarantine  officers.  This  would  mean,  of 
course,  the  searching  of  all  incoming  vessels,  but  in  New 
York  this  power  was  seldom  exercised  by  the  mayor.  He 
did  act  in  this  capacity  on  the  occasion  of  a  smallpox  epi- 
demic, when  he  supervised  the  medical  inspection  of  vessels 
hailing  from  infected  ports.1  In  general,  however,  the 
mayor  failed  in  his  duties  as  water  bailiff,  and  we  find  fre- 
quent criticism  of  his  inactivity  in  this  field.2 

In  case  of  the  mayor's  death,  absence,  or  inability  to 
serve,  his  powers  could  be  fully  exercised  by  a  deputy 
mayor,  who  was  an  alderman  appointed  annually  to  this 
office  by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the  governor. 
This  deputy  might  continue  a  session  of  the  common 
council  after  the  departure  of  the  mayor,  might  issue  war- 
rants upon  the  treasury  in  his  own  name,  could  appoint 
important  municipal  officers,  even  such  as  "high  constable," 
and  could  administer  oaths  of  office  to  members  of  the 
corporation.8 

The  recorder,  as  in  the  early  years  of  English  rule,  con- 
tinued to  be  an  important  officer  of  the  city  government. 
His  tenure  of  office,  however,  became  less  secure  in  these 
later  days,  characterized  by  violent  political  controversy. 
This  is  illustrated  by  the  case  of  Daniel  Horsmanden,  who 
was  appointed  to  the  position  of  recorder  by  Governor 
Cosby,  in  1735,  as  a  reward  for  his  adherence  to  the  gov- 
ernment party.*  When,  later,  he  joined  the  opposition  to 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  429-430. 

*  The  Independent  Reflector,  Dec.  28,  1752. 

s  M.  C.  C.,  op.  cit,,  passim.  These  powers,  in  a  general  way,  were 
vested  later  in  the  president  of  the  board  of  aldermen.  Kent,  op.  cit., 
p.  217. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  255-256. 


26          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [226 

Governor  George  Clinton,  he  was  summarily  removed  from 
office.1  A  lawyer  was  always  selected  as  recorder,  since 
the  functions  of  the  office  were  mainly  legal  and  judicial  in 
nature.  He  acted  as  corporation  counsel,  giving  legal  ad- 
vice to  the  city  officers,  drafting  ordinances,  aiding  in  the 
revision  of  municipal  by-laws,  and  in  1730  preparing  a 
new  charter.2  As  the  corporation  could  "  sue  and  be  sued," 
it  was  the  duty  of  the  recorder  to  prepare  the  cases  of  the 
city  for  presentation  in  the  provincial  courts.3  He  was  also 
a  member  of  the  common  council,  and,  as  such,  possessed 
extensive  powers.  In  the  absence  of  the  mayor,  he  could 
convene  the  municipal  board,  preside  at  its  sessions,  swear 
in  city  officers,  issue  orders  on  the  city  treasury  in  his  own 
name,  and  could,  in  fact,  exercise  all  the  powers  of  the 
chairman.  The  recorder  generally  took  an  active  part  in 
both  the  debating  and  the  voting  at  board  meetings.*  He 
served  also  on  committees  appointed  for  various  purposes, 
such  as  to  suppress  gambling  houses,  to  discharge  corpora- 
tion bonds,  to  settle  election  disputes. 

Moreover,  the  office  of  recorder  at  times  brought  the 
municipality  into  closer  contact  with  the  provincial  govern- 
ment, inasmuch  as  a  governor  appointed  in  several  instances 
a  member  of  his  own  council.  This  was  true  in  the  case 
of  Francis  Harison,  Daniel  Horsmanden  and  John  Watts, 
all  of  whom  were  also  members  of  the  governor's  council 
during  their  terms  of  office  as  recorders.5 

1  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  vii,  p.  528.  *  M .  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  9,  47,  272. 

'Ibid.,  pp.  303-304. 

4 As  stated  above,  the  deputy  mayor  might  also  act  as  chairman;  ap- 
parently there  was  no  fixed'  rule  of  procedure,  for  we  find  instances  of 
the  recorder  presiding  with  the  deputy  mayor  present,  and  vice  versa. 
Ibid.,  voL  v,  pp.  43,  46. 

5  See  infra,  p.  39. 


227]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  27 

Because  of  this  peculiar  two-fold  position,  it  was  within 
the  power  of  the  recorder  to  affect  materially  the  interests 
of  the  corporation.  On  more  than  one  occasion  his  influ- 
ence with  the  provincial  authorities  warded  off  attacks  upon 
corporate  rights  of  the  city,  or  saved  it  from  hostile  legis- 
lation. However,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  re-' 
corder  was  in  a  way  a  representative  of  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment in  the  common  council;  and  his  fellow  members 
in  that  body  on  several  occasions  manifested  suspicion  of 
his  good  faith.  It  should  not,  therefore,  be  astonishing  to 
find  that  the  recorder  was  often  an  object  of  attack  by  the 
common  council.  A  charge  of  falsely  imprisoning  a  citizen 
was  brought  against  one  recorder.  The  common  council 
made  several  attempts  to  reduce  the  powers  of  the  recorder 
and  to  abolish  the  perquisites  of  his  office.  In  1765  the 
question  arose  as  to  whether  he  possessed  the  right  to  vote 
in  the  common  council  in  the  presence  of  the  mayor,  and 
it  was  submitted  to  the  opinion  of  three  leading  attorneys.1 
One  of  them,  William  Smith,  Jr.,  denied  that  the  recorder 
had  a  vote  when  the  mayor  was  present.2  Another,  John 
Morin  Scott,  held  that  this  right  was  vested  in  the  office  by 
charter,  but  qualified  his  opinion  with  the  suggestion  that  a 
test  case  be  brought,  that  the  question  might  be  decided 
by  the  courts.  The  third,  William  Livingston,  supported 
the  recorder  unconditionally.  On  the  basis  of  these  re- 
ports the  common  council  permitted  the  recorder  to  retain 
the  full  right  to  vote.  The  board  was  successful,  however, 
in  depriving  the  recorder  of  certain  fees  of  his  office.  In 
the  past  he  had  been  permitted  to  collect  six  shillings  from 
persons  admitted  as  "  freemen  "  of  the  corporation.  But 
in  1750,  and  again  in  1769,  the  corporation  repealed  the 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  408-409.  l  Ibid.,  pp.  424-426. 


28          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [228 

ordinance  granting  him  this  privilege,  thereby  depriving  the 
recorder  of  a  very  profitable  source  of  income.1 

Another  busy  officer  of  the  city  government  was  the 
"  common  clerk."  As  town  clerk,  he  recorded  the  minutes 
of  the  common  council  and  of  the  city  courts,  sent  peti- 
tions to  the  provincial  government,  and  filed  reports  of  the 
tax-collectors.2  In  addition  to  keeping  the  municipal  court 
records,  he  also  served  as  court  stenographer.  As  the  busi- 
ness of  the  corporation  expanded,  it  became  impossible  for 
one  person  to  perform  all  its  secretarial  work;  so  the  clerk 
was  permitted  to  choose  deputies.3  Like  the  recorder,  this 
responsible  officer  was  appointed  by  the  governor  and  held 
office  during  good  behavior.4  As  a  matter  of  practice,  the 
term  of  the  town  clerk  was  long;  from  1692  to  1776,  a 
period  of  eighty-four  years,  only  three  incumbents  held  this 
office.  William  Sharpas  served  from  1692  until  his  death 
in  1739,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  John  Chambers,  gentle- 
man, later  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court.5  The  latter  re- 
signed in  1753,  and  was  succeeded  by  Augustus  Van  Cort- 
landt,  who  remained  in  office  until  the  outbreak  of  the 
Revolution.8 

The  aldermen  and  assistants  were  chosen  annually  by  the 
voters  of  the  city.  The  principle  of  direct  representation 
was  maintained,  each  of  the  seven  city  wards  electing  one 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  284;  vol.  vii,  p.  147.  By  an  act  of  April  7,  1830  (ch. 
122,  sec.  16),  the  recorder  ceased  altogether  to  be  a  member  of  the 
Common  Council,  and  became  exclusively  a  judicial  officer.  Kent, 
op.  cit.,  p.  217. 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  130-131. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  212,  331,  353. 

*Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  624. 

*Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  286;  vol.  iv,  p.  479.  Biographical  sketches  of  the 
clerks  are  contained  in  Valentine,  Manual  of  the  Corporation  of  New 
York  (1860),  pp.  608-610. 

'A/.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  402-404. 


229] 


ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT 


alderman  and  one  assistant.  Both  were  obliged  to  be  resi- 
dents of  the  ward  from  which  they  were  returned.  They 
were,  therefore,  directly  responsible  to  their  constituents, 
and  were  expected  to  defend  the  interests  of  their  respec- 
tive wards  on  every  occasion. 

The  aldermen  and  the  assistants,  together  with  the  mayor 
and  the  recorder,  formed  the  municipal  legislature  known 
as  the  common  council.  The  assistants  were  often  known 
as  "  common  councilmen,"  and,  with  the  exception  of 
petty  formalities,  they  possessed  legislative  rights  similar 
to  those  of  the  aldermen.  The  title  of  "  Esquire  "  was 
omitted  after  their  names,  and  they  were  not  permitted  to 
sit  with  the  mayor,  recorder,  and  aldermen  as  magistrates. 
The  meetings  of  the  common  council  were  usually  held  in 
the  City  Hall,  although  at  times  it  adjourned  elsewhere. 
For  leasing  municipal  ferries  or  selling  public  lands,  the 
board  often  convened  at  a  tavern  or  coffee-house.  Although 
the  common  council  did  not  meet  at  stated  times,  it  was 
customary  for  it  to  assemble  about  every  fortnight.  In 
later  years,  when  the  expenditures  became  heavier,  the 
•common  council  met  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  every 
month,  to  issue  warrants  for  the  payment  of  the  corpora- 
tion's debts.1  The  aldermen  attended  meetings  far  more 
regularly  than  did  the  assistants.  To  check  tardiness  and 
absence,  the  common  council  ordered 

that  Every  Member  of  this  Board  who  Shall  hereafter  be 
Summoned  to  attend  after  notice  given  to  him  or  to  some 
white  person  of  the  family  and  who  shall  not  attend  within 
half  an  hour  after  the  ringing  of  the  Bell  Shall  forfeit  two 
Shillings  and  Six  pence  and  if  he  shall  not  attend  at  all  that 
day  after  such  Summons  Shall  forfeit  five  Shillings  to  be  paid 
to  the  Clerk  of  this  Board.2 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  245.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  218,  287. 


3o          JV£^  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [230 

Later  the  time  limit  for  tardiness  was  reduced  to  one- 
quarter  of  an  hour,  after  which  a  member  was  fined  one 
shilling;  a  penalty  of  two  shillings  was  applied  for  absence 
without  reasonable  excuse.1 

Under  the  wording  of  the  charter,  the  members  of  the 
common  council  were  given  power  to  "  make  and  Estab- 
lish from  time  to  time  all  Such  Laws  Statutes  rights  Ordi- 
nances and  Constitutions  which  to  them  .  .  .  Shall  Seem  to 
be  good  usefull  or  necessary  for  the  good  rule  and  govern- 
ment of  the  body  corporate."  2  Still,  the  municipality  was 
not  given  general  powers  of  legislation,  for  the  charter  sub- 
jected the  common  council  to  several  limitations.  Its  ordi- 
nances must  not  be  repugnant  to  the  laws  either  of  Eng- 
land or  of  the  province.  Besides,  all  by-laws  of  the  com- 
mon council  remained  in  force  for  but  one  year  unless  con- 
firmed by  the  governor  and  council  of  the  province.  Never- 
theless it  appears  that  the  corporation  did  not  seek  the 
approval  of  the  province  for  its  ordinances,  preferring  in- 
stead to  reenact  them  as  a  whole  every  twelve  months.  This 
was  done  merely  by  reciting  the  titles  of  the  by-laws  and 
ordering  their  continuation  for  another  year.  Through  this 
formality  one  intended  check  upon  municipal  legislation 
was  rendered  ineffectual. 

The  nature  of  ordinances  enacted  by  the  common  coun- 
cil will  be  treated  more  fully  in  succeeding  chapters  on 
municipal  administration.  In  general,  we  may  here  char- 
acterize the  major  part  of  these  ordinances  as  "  police  " 
legislation  in  the  broad  sense  of  this  term.  Among  them, 
we  find  rules  "  for  the  better  prevention  of  fire,"  "  regu- 
lating negroes,  Mullattoes  and  other  slaves,"  "  preventing 
nuisances  in  streets,"  prohibiting  peddlers,  restraining  the 
selling  of  liquor  to  soldiers,  and  relating  to  similar  matters. 
The  regulation  of  business  relations  also  formed  a  subject 
1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  p.  35.  » Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  610. 


231]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  ^ 

of  deep  interest,  and  explains  the  passing  of  many  enact- 
ments regarding  public  markets,  slaughter-houses,  and 
docks,  as  also  the  sale  of  hay,  wood  and  foodstuffs. 

The  right  of  appointment,  with  the  exception  of  the  offi- 
cers whom  the  mayor  and  the  governor  selected,  was  vested 
in  the  common  council.  It  possessed  absolute  power  to 
choose,  or  to  dismiss  at  will,  inspectors  of  flour  and  other 
foodstuffs,  measurers  of  grain,  gaugers  of  liquors,  beadles, 
"watchmen"  (policemen),  court  attendants,  and  keepers 
of  municipal  institutions  for  charities  and  correction.1 

The  common  council  by  charter  was  vested  with  exten- 
sive administrative  powers,  due  to  what  may  be  termed  its 
committee  system.  Small  groups  of  its  members  were  ap- 
pointed to  direct  the  exercise  of  various  functions.  There 
were  committees  for  auditing  the  accounts  of  the  treasurer, 
for  arranging  terms  of  lease  of  municipal  properties  such  as 
ferries,  docks  and  markets,  and  for  superintending  public 
improvements  such  as  paving  of  streets,  erecting  a  new 
jail,  repairing  the  City  Hall,  and  constructing  water 
works.  At  first,  these  committees  were  chosen  indiscrimi- 
nately, but  after  1750  the  common  council  formulated  "a 
Standing  Rule  of  this  Board  that  whenever  a  Committee 
shall  be  appointed  for  the  future  for  any  matter  or  thing  to 
be  done  in  any  of  the  wards  of  this  City  that  the  alderman 
of  such  ward  shall  be  Chairman  of  such  Committee."  2 
This  regulation  was  generally  observed;  for,  directly  after 
election  day,  if  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  board  had 
occurred,  the  new  aldermen  and  assistants  were  appointed 
to  all  committees  on  which  outgoing  members  from  the 
same  wards  served. 

The  extensive  judicial  powers  which  the  corporation  had 
inherited  from  its  prototype,  the  English  borough,  were 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  614-615.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  304. 


32          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [232 

continued  during  the  later  colonial  period.  The  "  Mayor's 
Court "  and  the  "  Court  of  General  Quarter  Sessions,"  as 
described  in  the  chapter  on  the  earlier  period,  constituted 
the  municipal  tribunals,  the  former  hearing  civil  cases,  the 
latter  criminal.1  As  the  composition  and  jurisdiction  of 
these  two  courts  have  been  fully  explained  in  the  preceding 
volume,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  note  only  those  changes  in- 
troduced after  1731. 

In  1732  the  provincial  legislature  passed  an  act  "  for 
the  speedy  punishing  and  releasing  Such  persons  from  Im- 
prisonment as  shall  Commit  any  Criminal  offences  in  the 
City  of  New  York  under  the  Degree  of  Grand  Larceny."  2 
Heretofore  offenders  unable  to  furnish  bail,  pending  trial 
in  general  quarter  sessions,  were  detained  in  the  city  jails — 
at  the  expense  of  the  corporation  it  is  true,  but  "  at  the 
same  time  their  long  Imprisonment  .  .  .  [was]  a  great 
damage  to  many  of  their  families,  who  wanted  their  Labour 
to  support  them  ".  Such  a  policy  having  proved  burden- 
some to  the  government  as  well  as  to  the  individual,  it  was 
provided  that  the  mayor,  deputy  mayor,  or  recorder,  sitting 
with  any  two  magistrates,  should  constitute  a  court  to  de- 
termine the  punishment  of  an  offender  who  failed  to  pro- 
duce bail  forty-eight  hours  after  having  been  apprehended. 
If  convicted,  the  criminal  received  corporal  punishment  at 
the  hands  of  the  "  publick  whipper  "  and  was  ordered  to 
leave  the  city  within  two  days. 

Still  another  change  in  judicial  procedure  was  ordained 
by  the  general  assembly.  As  the  mayor's  court  was  exclu- 
sively a  municipal  tribunal,  the  Montgomerie  Charter  had 
given  the  justices  the  right  to  designate,  with  the  approval 

1  Daly,  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Judicial  Tribunals  of  New  York  from 
1623  to  1846  (N.  Y.,  1855).    Succeeding  chapters  contain  cases  illustrat- 
ing the  jurisdiction  of  these  two  courts. 

2  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  766-768. 


233]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  33 

of  the  governor,  those  who  might  practice  before  them. 
If  the  governor  concurred,  the  court  could  also  remove  any 
lawyer  for  misbehavior.  As  a  result,  a  monopoly  of  the 
legal  business  was  created  by  limiting  the  number  of  attor- 
neys. These  restrictions  naturally  proved  irksome  to  the 
other  lawyers  in  the  province.1  After  an  appeal  to  the 
general  assembly  in  1746,  it  was  enacted,  over  the  protest 
of  the  corporation,  that  all  attorneys  practicing  in  the 
supreme  court  might  exercise  the  same  right  in  the  mayor's 
court.2 

The  popular  attitude  toward  the  judiciary  in  colonial 
times  was  apparently  unfriendly.  A  broadside  from  the 
press  of  John  Peter  Zenger  in  1734  contained  the  following 
caustic  reference  to  the  partiality  of  the  courts  for  the  upper 
class :  If  "  any  great  Man  should  draw  his  Indignation, 
and  whip  you  through  the  Lungs ;  or  with  a  stone  or  Brick- 
Batt  knock  your  Brains  out,  [and]  he  should  be  presented 
by  the  Grand  Jury,  Pray  what  Notice  would  be  taken  of  it? 
If  we  may  guess  at  what  will  be,  from  what  has  been;  I 
believe  very  little."  3  Under  date  of  September  13, 1752,  the 
Independent  Re/lector,  a  weekly  paper  edited  by  persons  of 
liberal  political  ideals,  contained  a  sharp  criticism  of  those 
justices  "  who  stand  in  more  Awe  of  a  Band  of  Carmen 
[cartmen]  than  of  an  armed  Host;  because  that  proceeds 
not  so  much  from  natural  Timidity,  as  a  more  political 
Reason."  Indeed,  it  is  little  wonder  that  prudence  dictated 
the  acts  of  the  magistrates,  since  they  were  under  the 
necessity  of  seeking  votes  every  fall  in  order  to  remain  in 
office.4 

1  Journal  of  the  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Colony  of  New-York  (N.  Y.,  1764),  vol.  i,  p.  627. 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  165 ;  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  546-548. 

s  Broadside,  dated  Sept.  8,  12,  1734,  in  N.  Y.  Pub.  Library. 

*  Contemporary  criticism  of  the  courts  is  also  contained  in  the  Post- 
Boy,  March  5,  1750;  Mercury,  Feb.  21,  1755. 


34          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [234 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  only  the  internal  features 
of  the  city  government.  But  we  must  remember  that  as  an 
eighteenth-century  municipality  it  was  merely  an  agent  of  the 
provincial  government,  devised,  as  Goodnow  aptly  says,  "for 
the  discharge  of  those  functions  interesting  the  state  gov- 
ernment which  demanded  local  treatment."  *  It  is  therefore 
always  necessary  to  be  mindful  of  this  dependent  position 
of  a  municipal  corporation  as  we  view  its  relations  to  the 
provincial  government.2  The  provincial  legislature,  it  seems, 
possessed  a  certain  amount  of  control  over  municipal 
affairs,  the  Montgomerie  Charter  itself  being  embodied  in 
the  colonial  laws.  Moreover,  the  act  which  it  passed  in 
1732,  confirming  the  grant  of  Governor  Montgomerie,  is 
referred  to  as  "  a  general  and  publick  Act  of  Assembly."  * 
We  observed  an  exercise  of  the  general  assembly's  power 
above,  in  the  act  permitting  attorneys  of  the  supreme  court 
to  practice  in  the  mayor's  court.  The  statute  concluded 
with  the  statement  that  this  change  in  judicial  procedure 
was  effective,  "  Notwithstanding  the  Charter  of  the  said 
City,  and  the  Act  of  the  Governour,  the  council  &  General 
Assembly  of  this  Colony  for  confirming  the  Same."* 

A  number  of  provincial  acts  supplementing  the  city 
charter  will  be  cited  under  appropriate  headings  in  later 
chapters.  It  will  be  shown  that  the  police  power  of  the 
municipality  was  affected  by  provincial  acts  ordering  non- 
inflammable  material  for  roofs,  and  determining  the  number 
of  firemen  and  fire  engines  in  the  city.  The  repairing  of 
pumps  and  wells,  the  maintenance  of  roads  within  the  city 
limits,  the  erecting  of  bridges,  the  rates  to  be  charged  on 

1  City  Government  in  the  United  States  (N.  Y.,  1904),  p.  35. 

1  Dillon,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  57-60.  In  New  York  the  control  over  local 
administration  was  more  extensive  than  in  New  England.  Fairlie, 
Centralisation  of  Administration  in  New  York  State  (N.  Y.,  1897), 

pp.  11-12. 

'  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  752-753.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  547-548. 


235]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  35 

the  ferries,  all  were  included  within  the  scope  of  provincial 
legislation.  The  corporation  was  especially  dependent  upon 
the  legislature  of  the  province  in  financial  matters.  With 
the  expansion  of  municipal  activity,  the  need  of  sufficient 
income  became  a  very  pressing  problem,  and  the  only  solu- 
tion lay  in  direct  taxation.1  But  as  this  power  was  not 
inherent  in  the  corporation,  it  was  under  the  necessity  of 
petitioning  the  general  assembly  whenever  it  decided  that  a 
tax  on  real  or  personal  property  was  needed  to  meet  muni- 
cipal expenses. 

Although  many  of  these  acts  amplified  the  powers  of  the 
corporation,  provincial  legislation,  of  a  nature  decidedly 
hostile  to  the  city,  was  frequently  attempted.  Bills  against 
the  interests  of  the  corporation  were  at  times  proposed,  but 
for  various  reasons  failed  to  pass  both  chambers  of  the 
legislature.  An  explanation  of  this  hostility  and  also  of 
the  defeat  of  unfriendly  acts  lies  in  the  political  organiza- 
tion of  the  provincial  legislature.  This  body  consisted  of 
two  houses,  the  assembly,  whose  members  were  elected  by 
popular  vote,  and  the  council,  appointed  by  the  crown. 
In  the  former  the  city  had  but  four  representatives  out  of 
a  total  of  twenty-seven.  Its  political  power  was  further 
limited  after  1745.  Until  this  year,  assemblymen  of  the 
rural  counties  would  occasionally  take  up  residence  in  New 
York,  in  order  to  be  near  the  seat  of  government,  and, 
according  to  the  British  practice  of  representation,  a  resi- 
dent of  the  city  might  serve  as  a  member  from  an  outside 
district.  The  house,  however,  refused  to  accept  this  theory 
in  the  case  of  Edward  Holland,  elected  to  the  assembly 
from  the  township  of  Schenectady,  and  he  was  rejected  on 
the  ground  of  being  a  non-resident.2 

1  See  chapter  ix. 

*  Journal  of  the  Legislative  Council  of  the  Colony  of  New-York 
(Albany,  1861),  vol.  ii,  p.  1706.  Smith,  History  of  the  Late  Province 
of  New-York  (N.  Y.,  1830),  vol.  ii,  pp.  02-93. 


36          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [236 

The  animosity  toward  the  city  was  centered  mainly  in 
the  counties  around  Manhattan,  namely,  Westchester, 
Richmond,  Kings  and  Queens.  The  extent  to  which  this 
enmity  was  carried  will  be  shown  in  succeeding  chapters  in 
describing  the  attempts  of  Westchester  to  nullify  ordinances 
regulating  city  markets,  of  Richmond  to  alter  prices  fixed 
by  the  common  council,  and  of  Kings  actually  to  repeal 
the  charter.  In  brief,  the  feeling  was  due  to  the  constant 
clash  between  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  province  and 
the  commercial  element  resident  in  the  city. 

The  unfriendly  attitude  of  the  rural  districts  manifested 
itself  especially  in  apportioning  direct  taxes  among  the 
several  counties.  Although  statistics  as  to  the  amount  of 
taxable  wealth  throughout  the  province  are  not  available, 
still  several  interesting  conclusions  regarding  the  equity  of 
the  distribution  of  taxes  may  be  derived  from  a  comparison 
of  the  population  and  quotas  of  the  city  and  the  province. 
From  figures  presented  above  it  is  evident  that  the  city  of 
New  York  contained  considerably  less  than  one-fifth  of  the 
total  number  of  inhabitants  of  the  province — a  ratio  which 
remained  relatively  constant  throughout  the  later  colonial 
period.  But  in  decided  contrast  to  this  was  the  city's  ever- 
rising  quota  of  provincial  taxation.  For  a  time  the  assign- 
ment to  the  city  varied  from  one-fifth  to  one-fourth,  but 
gradually  one-third  came  to  be  regarded  as  its  regular 
portion.1 

The  tendency  of  the  legislature  thus  to  transfer  the  bur- 
den of  provincial  taxation  to  the  city  caused  considerable 
adverse  comment.  William  Smith,  the  historian,  remarked 
that  "  the  members  for  the  metropolis  always  complain  of 
the  intrigues  of  the  country  gentlemen,  in  loading  their 

1  Jour.  Leg.  Coun.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  915-917.  Schwab,  History  of  the  New 
York  Property  Tax  (Baltimore,  1890),  p.  59. 


237]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  37 

city  with  a  third  part  of  the  public  burdens,  for  the  ease  of 
their  own  counties."  *  Regarding  the  equity  of  this  as- 
signment, we  have  the  statement  of  the  upper  house  of  the 
provincial  legislature,  "  that  no  one  can  be  of  the  opinion 
that  the  Real  &  personal  Estates  of  the  Inhabitants  of  the 
City  &  County  of  New  York  do  amount  to  near  one  third 
of  the  value  of  Real  &  personal  Estates  of  the  whole  Prov- 
ince." 2 

At  times  the  portion  of  the  city's  taxes  even  exceeded 
one-third.  In  1744  the  quota  required  of  the  city  was 
^S^P,  almost  one-half  of  the  entire  levy,  and  the  only 
justification  for  this  exorbitant  proportion  was  that  the 
money  so  raised  would  be  spent  in  erecting  defenses  for  the 
city.  Two  years  later,  the  lower  house,  in  distributing  the 
quotas  for  a  tax  of  £10,000,  endeavored  to  saddle  forty- 
four  per  cent  of  it  upon  the  city,  but  the  plan  was  defeated 
in  the  upper  chamber.3 

In  the  struggle  against  the  rural  interests,  the  city's  rep- 
resentatives generally  found  political  allies  in  the  members 
from  Albany.  Commerce  and  trade  formed  the  leading 
occupations  in  both  New  York  and  Albany,  and  occasion- 
ally their  representatives  pooled  votes  in  efforts  to  resist 
aggression  on  the  part  of  the  agricultural  counties.4  New 
York  citizens  eagerly  sought  this  assistance  "  against  the 
unmanly  and  ill-policied  envy  of  lower  counties."  5  Both 
cities,  moreover,  were  exposed  to  attacks  from  foreign 

1  Smith,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  97.    Jour.  Leg.  Coun.,  vol.  ii,  p.  1706. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  916. 

s  four.  Assemb.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  95-99,  101,  109-110.  Jour.  Leg.  Coun.,  vol. 
ii,  pp.  916-917. 

4  Spencer,  in  the  Political  Science  Quarterly,  vol.  xxx,  pp.  420-423. 

5  Broadside  addressed  to  "  The  Representatives  in  General  Assembly, 
for  the  City  and  County  of  New  York,"  under  date  of  Feb.  1774,  in 
Library  of  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 


38          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [238 

enemies,  and  it  was  therefore  to  their  common  interest  to 
see  that  suitable  appropriation  for  defense  should  be  made 
by  the  assembly.  Being  more  or  less  protected  from  in- 
vasion by  the  buffer  counties  of  New  York  and  Albany,  the 
interior  districts  usually  voted  against  large  military  bud- 
gets. Again  New  York  and  Albany  were  both  incorporated 
cities.  Therefore  attacks  upon  the  vested  rights  of  one 
might  react  unfavorably  upon  the  charter  and  franchises  of 
the  other. 

This  alliance,  however,  proved  too  weak  to  defeat  hostile 
legislation  in  the  assembly,  and  the  only  recourse  lay  in  the 
governor's  council,  which  possessed  in  general  the  power 
of  rejecting  bills  coming  from  the  assembly.  Referring  to 
the  general  apportioning  of  taxes,  William  Smith,  the  con- 
temporary historian,  wrote  that  "  but  for  the  fears  [of  the 
members  of  the  assembly]  of  losing  their  bills  in  the  coun- 
cil, which  is  generally  composed  of  citizens  of  influence,  a 
still  greater  share  would  fall  upon  the  small  island  form- 
ing the  city  and  county  of  New  York."  1  A  bill  of  the 
assembly  concerned  with  the  ferry  across  the  East  River 
did  not  become  law,  because  the  upper  house  deemed  it  a 
violation  of  the  chartered  rights  of  the  corporation.2  Sev- 
eral other  bills  regulating  the  municipal  markets  and  the 
sale  of  hay  and  wood,  which  were  defeated  in  the  council 
after  passing  the  assembly,  will  be  described  in  the  chapter 
on  "  Trade  and  Industry." 

Why  did  the  governor's  council  exhibit  this  friendly 
attitude  toward  the  corporation?  It  may  have  been  in- 
directly the  result  of  the  action  of  the  city  in  allowing  the 
council  the  use  of  a  room  in  the  City  Hall  for  its  delibera- 
tions. There,  for  the  most  part,  its  meetings  were  held.  We 
see.  therefore,  how  very  convenient  it  was  for  Alderman 

1  Smith,  op.  cit.t  vol.  ii,  pp.  97-98.  f  See  chapter  viii. 


239]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  39 

Simon  Johnson,  for  instance,  to  meet  Councilor  Cadwallader 
Golden  and  to  persuade  him  to  vote  against  a  particularly 
obnoxious  bill  from  the  assembly.  Another  reason  was 
that,  out  of  a  total  membership  of  ten,  several  of  the  active 
councilors  generally  were  residents  of  the  city.  Certainly 
Manhattan  members  could  attend  more  regularly  than  those 
residing  at  a  distance.  At  all  events,  it  is  a  significant  fact 
that  some  members  of  the  common  council  always  had 
seats  in  the  governor's  council.1 

The  governor,  as  well  as  the  legislature,  exerted  consid- 
erable control  over  the  corporation,  since  he  appointed  the 
mayor,  the  recorder,  the  town  clerk,  the  sheriff  and  the 
coroner.  Without  referring  in  detail  to  events  connected 
with  provincial  politics,  it  may  be  said  in  brief  that  the 
relations  between  the  provincial  executive  and  the  city  were 
generally  harmonious.2 

Considering,  lastly,  the  relations  between  the  city  and 
the  provincial  judiciary,  we  are  further  impressed  by  the 
dependent  position  of  the  municipality.  Organized  as  a 
corporation  before  the  law,  it  could  sue  and  be  sued  without 
reservation.8  The  supreme  court  on  one  occasion  dealt 
severely  with  the  common  council,  when  the  latter  passed 
an  ordinance  defining  the  uses  of  the  city  seal.4  This  was 
really  a  direct  attack  upon  Mayor  Paul  Richard,  an  ap- 
pointee of  Governor  Cosby.  The  latter  lost  no  time  in 
r  having  suit  brought  against  the  corporation  in  the  name  of 

1  We  may  cite  particularly  the  following  individuals :  Mayors,  Stephen 
Bayard,  Edward  Holland;  Recorders,  Francis  Harison,  Daniel  Hors- 
manden,  John  Watts;  Aldermen,  Philip  Livingston,  John  Moore,  Oliver 
De  Lancey. 

1  Apparently  the  only  exception  occurred  in  the  administration  of  Wil- 
liam Cosby. 

*  Parchment  rolls  of  actions  in  which  the  city  was  a  party  have  been 
carefully  filed  in  the  county  clerk's  office  and  are  now  accessible. 

*  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  264-265. 


40          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [240 

the  king,  on  the  ground  that  the  particular  ordinance  was 
"  Conceived  to  be  unreasonable  and  against  Law."  *  The 
common  council  was  formally  notified  of  this  action  be- 
fore the  supreme  court,  and,  knowing  what  to  expect  from 
a  judiciary  controlled  by  Governor  Cosby,  it  hastened,  at 
its  next  session,  to  rescind  the  ordinance.2  When  the  cor- 
poration appeared  before  the  bar  of  justice,  it  was  thus  able 
to  plead  that  it  had  rendered  "  null  and  void  the  By  Law 
therein  mentioned."  3 

Direct  nullification  was  not  the  only  means  used  by  the 
supreme  court  to  influence  the  corporation.  Following  a 
serious  epidemic  of  yellow  fever,  due  to  a  laxity  in  enforc- 
ing ordinances  on  public  sanitation,  the  corporation  was  in- 
dicted and  prosecuted  in  the  supreme  court  for  "  Sundry 
Nuisances."  4  The  members  of  the  common  council  were 
considerably  agitated  over  the  action  of  the  court  and  lost 
no  time  in  enacting  regulations  to  remove  the  objectionable 
conditions.5 

The  indictment  of  the  Oswego  Market,  the  property  of 
the  corporation,  may  be  cited  as  another  illustration  of 
judicial  interference.  This  building,  it  was  claimed,  was. 
obstructing  traffic  on  Broadway.6  Negotiations  on  the  part 
of  the  common  council  failed  to  save  the  old  market  and 
the  sheriff  demolished  it  by  order  of  the  court.7 

Lastly,  in  the  case  of  Hendrick  Remsen  vs.  Mayor,  Al- 
dermen and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York,  the 
supreme  court  decided  against  the  defendant,  with  the  re- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  288-289.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  290-291. 

'  Ibid.,  pp.  303-304.  *Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  111-112,  116. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  113-114,  118-121.  tlbid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  259-260. 

1  Minute  Book,  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature,  Jan.  17,  1771,  Hall  of 
Records. 


241  ]  ORGANIZATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  4! 

suit  that  the  municipality  lost  its  valuable  monopoly  of 
ferries  across  the  East  River.1 

We  may  now  briefly  summarize  the  chief  features  of  the 
relations  between  city  and  province.  Municipal  home  rule, 
in  the  theoretical  sense  of  the  term,  did  not  exist.  As  we 
have  seen,  the  lower  house  of  the  provincial  legislature  was 
invariably  antagonistic,  at  least  where  the  interests  of  the 
city  were  in  conflict  with  those  of  the  rural  counties.  On 
occasions  the  provincial  judiciary  also  interfered  in  local 
administration,  but  the  governor  and  his  council  were  gen- 
erally friendly  in  their  attitude. 

•  T'.    *  See  chapter  viii. 


CHAPTER  II 

POLITICAL  ASPECTS 

THE  preceding  chapter  has  dealt  with  the  organization 
of  the  city  government  as  it  existed  in  the  later  colonial 
period.  In  that  description,  little  consideration  was  there- 
fore given  toward  showing  how  the  actual  working  of  that 
government  was  influenced  by  current  political  conditions. 
The  city  of  New  York,  in  colonial  times,  occupied  a  place 
of  general  importance  in  the  political  as  well  as  in  the  com- 
mercial affairs  of  the  British  colonies. 

Annual  municipal  elections  were  rare  in  British  America, 
being  held  only  in  Philadelphia,  Albany  and  New  York.1 
In  the  last-named  especially,  they  were  very  important,  per- 
haps as  much  so  as  they  are  today.  The  larger  questions 
of  municipal  politics,  in  which  we  are  naturally  interested, 
are  the  extent  of  the  suffrage,  the  conduct  of  elections,  and 
the  influence  of  economic  and  denominational  interests  upon 
the  voters. 

As  explained  in  the  previous  chapter,  all  members  of  the 
common  council,  except  the  mayor  and  the  recorder,  were 
elected  officers.  It  is  indeed  astonishing  that  the  charter 
granted  to  the  corporation  by  Governor  Dongaji  contained 
such  liberal  provisions  regarding  suffrage,  at  a  time  when 
King  Charles  II  was  attacking  the  municipal  privileges  of 
London,  and  vacating  the  charters  of  numerous  English 
boroughs. 

1  McKinley,  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  Thirteen  English  Colonies  in 
America  (Phila.,  1905),  pp.  222-223,  298.  Bishop,  History  of  Elections 
in  the  American  Colonies  (N.  Y.,  1893),  p.  215. 

42  [242 


243  J  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  43 

The  vote  in  municipal  elections  was  granted  to  "  free- 
holders "  and  "  freemen  "  of  the  city.  The  former  were 
those  who  possessed  estates  in  the  city  valued  at  over  £40; 
the  latter  were  residents  of  the  municipality  enrolled  as 
members  of  the  commonalty  who  plied  a  specific  occupa- 
tion.1 These  qualifications  were  not  rigidly  observed  and 
caused  endless  dispute  at  the  polls  for  many  years  until,  in 
1771,  the  provincial  legislature  passed  a  law  which  finally 
established  definite  regulations.2  According  to  this  statute. 
the  electors  in  each  ward  were  to'  be  qualified  one  month 
before  election  day  in  order  to  vote.  At  that  time  the  free- 
holder must  claim  ownership  of  property  in  the  ward,  and 
a  freeman  residence.  Besides,  the  freeman  was  also  re- 
quired to  have  his  "  freemanship "  three  months  before 
election  day.  In  the  early  years  the  number  of  freemen 
remained  comparatively  small,  as  the  corporation  of  the 
city  of  New  York  was  not  very  liberal  in  granting  the  free- 
manship. But  after  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
when  a  wave  of  democracy  swept  the  entire  province,  this 
policy  was  reversed,  and  in  consequence  suffrage  was  con- 
siderably extended.  We  are  told  that  in  1765,  in  one  day 
alone,  "at  the  Mayor's  Court,  216  Inhabitants  of  the  City 
took  up  their  Freedom,  and  it  is  supposed  that  there  were 
as  many  more  ready  to  apply  for  it;  but  the  Court  being 
tired,  and  not  having  Time  for  it,  adjourned  for  4 
Weeks."  3  At  the  provincial  elections  held  in  1769  for  the 
assembly,  506  voted  as  freeholders,  602  as  freemen,  and 
407  as  both  freeholders  and  freemen.* 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  p.  229.    The  position  of  freeman  is  explained  in 
the  chapter  on  "  Commerce  and  Industry." 
*Co/.  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  229-236. 

3  Mercury,  Oct.  7,  1765. 

4  Copy  of  the  Poll  List  of  the  Election  for  Representatives  for  the  City 
and  County  of  New-York  .  .  .  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  MDCCLXI. 


44          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH.  CENTURY      [244 

A  nice  question  here  arises  regarding  the  municipal  suf- 
frage rights  of  a  freeholder,  L  e.  whether  he  was  privileged 
to  vote  in  more  than  one  ward  provided  he  owned  property 
to  the  value  of  £40  in  other  wards.  Such  plural  voting  was 
permitted  by  the  province;  in  fact,  the  polls  in  the  election 
of  members  to  the  assembly  were  kept  open  for  several  days 
to  allow  country  residents,  owning  property  valued  at  over 
£40,  to  reach  the  city  in  time  to  cast  their  votes  for  city 
members.1  In  thus  giving  a  property  owner  more  than  one 
vote,  the  province  was  merely  following  English  custom  of 
plural  voting.  In  the  election  of  aldermen  and  of  assist- 
ants, however,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  this  was  the  case. 
Though  the  contemporaneous  data  before  1771  are  some- 
what confusing,  they  leave  the  impression  that  in  the  city 
no  freeholder  was  supposed  to  have  more  than  one  vote. 
On  this  subject  the  language  of  the  Montgomerie  Charter 
is  not  very  clear,  merely  stating  that  the  vote  shall  be  given 
to  "  the  ffreemen  of  the  Said  City  being  Inhabitants  and 
the  ffreeholders  of  Each  respective  ward  in  the  Said  City."  2 
We  have  evidence  that  on  one  occasion  in  the  early  years 
of  our  period,  voting  by  a  property  holder  outside  of  his 
own  ward  was  the  object  of  special  criticism  and  called 
forth  comment  from  one  of  the  local  newspapers.8  There 
is  little  doubt  as  to  the  practice  which  was  followed  after 
1771,  for  the  provincial  statute  of  that  year  defined  the 
manner  of  conducting  elections  in  the  city,  and  required 
every  freeholder  and  freeman  to  swear  that  he  had  "  not 
been  before  Polled  at  this  Election."  *  That  this  law  once 
and  for  all  established  the  principle  of  "  one  man,  one 
vote,"  becomes  more  apparent  in  the  provision  ordering 

1  McKinley,  op.  cit.,  p.  217;  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  712. 

*Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  606.  *  Journal,  Oct.  7,  1734. 

*  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  p.  228. 


245]  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  45 

owners  of  freeholds  on  the  east  side  of  Broadway,  which 
ran  through  both  the  North  and  the  West  Wards,  to  vote 
only  in  the  former.1  It  might  be  inferred  from  this  that 
certain  freeholders  had  tried  to  vote  in  two  wards. 

In  the  province  of  New  York  religious  qualifications 
barred  only  a  small  percentage  from  voting,  a  remarkable 
condition  when  compared  with  the  narrow  policy  often 
practiced  in  the  nearby  New  England  colonies.  Jews  and 
Catholics  were  the  only  persons  excluded  on  this  ground, 
even  Quakers  having  equal  rights  with  persons  of  other 
denominations.2 

We  possess  original  data  from  which  the  extent  of  suf- 
frage in  the  city  of  New  York  may  be  estimated.  This 
evidence  is  summarized  in  the  following  table. 

From  the  figures  given  below  we  may  safely  conclude  that, 
although  at  the  granting  of  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  in 
1731,  about  seven  per  cent  of  the  total  white  population 
actually  voted,  within  thirty  years  this  proportion  had 
risen  considerably.  These  figures  show  a  remarkably  ex- 
tensive suffrage,  especially  if  compared  with  Philadelphia, 
where,  even  under  the  rule  of  the  Quakers,  only  two  per 
cent  of  the  total  population  qualified  as  voters.8 

Let  us  now  see  how  a  municipal  election  in  colonial  times 
was  actually  conducted,  by  taking  that  held  in  1770  as  a 
typical  example.  Abraham  P.  Lott  and  George  Brewerton, 
Junior,  were  rival  candidates  for  the  office  of  alderman  of 
the  West  Ward.  The  former  was  a  well-known  merchant 
who  had  formerly  served  as  assistant  and  later  as  alderman 
of  the  ward.4  We  find  Brewerton  registered  on  the  lists  of 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  p.  231. 

*  Smith,  Hist  of  N.  Y.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  47-48;  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  712; 
McKinley,  op.  cit.,  pp.  214-215. 
8McKinley,  op.  cit.,  p.  292. 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  351,  390;  vii,  p.  126. 


46          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [246 

NUMBER  OF  VOTES  CAST  IN  ELECTIONS  HELD  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


Year  of 
Election 

Total  White 
Population1 
(Estimated) 

Provincial  Elections 

Municipal  Elections 

Total 
Votes 
Cast 

Per  cent  of 
Votes 
to  White 
Population 

Votes 
Cast 

Per  cent 

Number 
of  Wards 

1  1  1A  .  . 

7999 
8317 
13418 
17128 
17664 

4422 
66* 

5-5 

6 

i 

I*77C  .  . 

8l23 

M475 
1927* 

ISIS7 

7-3 
10.7 

1  1.  2 
8-5 

1768. 

fjfio. 

28l8 

5839 
264  10 
267" 

I 
I 
I 
I 

17TO.  . 

\111  .  . 

ITTC  .  . 

the  freemen  as  a  "  gentleman,"  and  he  therefore  represented 
social  standing.12  He  depended  upon  the  political  support 
of  his  relatives,  Alderman  George  Brewerton  and  Common 

1  The  population  is  estimated  by  the  method  of  arithmetical  progres- 
sion from  known  census  figures. 

JM.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  223;  Journal,  Oct.  7,  1734.  No  returns  were 
given  for  the  Out  Ward.  The  account  adds  that  in  the  other  wards 
there  were  "  many  more  ready  to  poll  for  the  new  candidates,"  but 
these  votes  were  not  included  in  the  canvass. 

'Valentine,  Manual  of  the  Corporation  (1869),  p.  851. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  279.  *  Poll  list  for  1761. 

•Poll  list  for  1768.  7  Poll  list  for  1769. 

8  Report,  dated  Oct.  13,  1769,  "  of  a  committee  upon  the  Scrutiny  for 
Alderman  and  Common  Councilman  of  the  Out  Ward,"  in  filed  papers, 
city  clerk's  office. 

•Filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 

10  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  403. 

11  Gazette,  Oct.  2,  1775. 

"Burghers  of  New  Amsterdam  and  the  Freemen  of  New  York  (Col- 
lections, N.  Y.  Hist.  Society,  1885),  p.  197. 


247]  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  47 

Councilman  Jacob  Brewerton,  at  the  time  members  of  the 
board.  This  family  had  been  conspicuous  for  its  active 
espousal  of  the  conservative  cause  in  the  elections  for  the 
assembly  in  1768.  The  contest  between  such  prominent 
candidates  as  Lott  and  Brewerton  aroused  general  interest. 
September  29,  Michaelmas  Day,  which  had  been  from 
time  out  of  mind  the  day  for  the  annual  election  of  muni- 
cipal officers,  was  at  hand.  After  the  freemen  and  freehold- 
ers of  the  ward  had  assembled  at  the  polls,  and  had  ex- 
pressed preference  for  either  Lott  or  Brewerton,  the  votes 
were  counted.  It  was  found  that  Alderman  Lott  had 
been  re-elected,  receiving  301  votes  as  against  282  for  his 
opponent,"  but  Peter  T.  Curtenius,  retiring  assistant,  had 
been  defeated  by  Abraham  Mesier  by  a  vote  of  286  to  292. 1 
In  the  afternoon,  when  polls  in  all  the  wards  had  been 
closed,  the  common  council  convened  to  receive  official  re- 
turns, and  prepared  to  hear  petitions  for  a  recount.2  At 
this  meeting,  the  contest  for  the  leading  offices  in  the  West 
Ward  was  continued.  Mr.  Lott  returned  himself  as  alder- 
man and  reported  that  Mesier  had  been  chosen  to  succeed 
Curtenius  as  common  councilman,  giving  also  the  names  of 
those  elected  as  collector,  assessor  and  constable  of  the 
West  Ward,  respectively.  Brewerton,  the  defeated  candi- 
date for  the  office  of  alderman,  was  present  to  protest  the 
returns  as  given  by  Mr.  Lott,  and  to  request  a  recount  of 
the  votes  on  the  charge  that  there  had  been  "  some  undue 
Methods  &  unfair  practices  used  in  the  Course  of  the  said 
Election  by  his  opponent."  3  In  support  of  his  contention, 
Brewerton  submitted  an  affidavit  of  several  electors  who 
declared  that  they,  "  Conceiving  themselves  Justly  Entitled 
to  give  their  Votes  at  the  late  Election  for  alderman  and 

1 "  List  of  Good  and  Bad  Votes  "  in  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 
*M.  C.  C,,  vol.  vii,  pp.  229-232.  *Ibid.,  p.  232. 


48          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [248 

common  councilman  for  the  West-ward  of  this  City  .  .  . 
did  then  offer  to  give  their  Votes  in  favor  of  George 
Brewerton,  Junior  and  Abraham  Mesier,  but  were  not  ad- 
mitted." 1  The  Common  Council  thereupon  decided  to  in- 
vestigate the  returns  and  ordered  that  "  each  party  make 
out  a  List  of  the  Voters  they  respectively  object  to,  and 
point  out  at  the  end  of  each  List  the  Cause  of  Objection 
and  that  they  then  Changed  their  Lists."  z 

On  Saturday  morning,  October  13,  the  common  council 
met  expressly  for  the  purpose  of  settling  election  contro- 
versies. Pending  the  examination  of  the  poll  lists,  Alder- 
man Lott  withdrew  from  the  board,  as  also  did  Alderman 
George  Brewerton  and  Common  Councilman  Jacob  Brewer- 
ton,  relatives  of  the  defeated  candidate,  since  they  were  all 
personally  interested  in  the  outcome.  Both  sides  submitted 
the  names  of  such  persons  as  were  said  to  have  voted  ille- 
gally. After  closely  scrutinizing  all  data,  the  common 
council  rendered  a  decision  upholding  the  election  of  Lott. 

What  the  "  unfair  practices  "  were  with  which  Brewer- 
ton,  charged  his  opponent,  are  not  mentioned  in  the  peti- 
tion of  the  defeated  candidate.  However,  from  other 
sources  it  is  very  apparent  that  corrupt  methods  were  prac- 
ticed extensively  at  colonial  elections  held  in  New  York 
City.  One  citizen,  describing  his  experiences  in  a  letter  to 
the  New-York  Gazette,  stated  that  one  evening,  while  pass- 
ing through  a  street  in  the  West  Ward,  he  observed  a  large, 
noisy  crowd  collected  at  a  small  inn.  Upon  inquiring  for 
the  cause  of  the  commotion,  he  was  informed  that  "  a 
dramshop  was  opened,  and  that  every  Freeholder  or  Free- 
man, who  was  willing  to  part  with  his  vote,  might  there 
meet  with  a  purchaser."  8  The  Independent  Reflector,  a 

1  Affidavit  in  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 

*  M.  C.  €.,  vol.  vii,  p.  232  et  seq. 

8  Gazette,  Feb.  15,  1768,  broadside  in  Library  of  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 


249]  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  49 

paper  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  popular  party,  bitterly 
scored  the  election  jobbery  so  common  in  its  day.  Though 
conceding  that  the  practice  of  intoxicating  people  to  influ- 
ence their  votes  might  claim  justification  upon  the  authority 
of  custom,  one  contributor  to  the  Independent  Reflector 
terms  this  evil  "  a  perilous  Invasion  of  our  constitutional 
Privileges."  He  goes  on  to  exclaim :  "  How  often  have 
the  Votes  of  the  People  been  purchased  .  .  .  without  the 
least  Endeavor  to  conceal  the  Bribery?  And  how  seldom 
are  the  Qualifications  of  the  Candidates  considered  by  the 
Electors."  x 

Aside  from  these  confessedly  corrupt  acts,  several  other 
features  of  colonial  elections  may  be  criticized.  Every  voter 
was  under  the  necessity  of  declaring  his  choice  in  public, 
and  thus  was  almost  sure  of  incurring  the  displeasure  of 
the  candidate  whom  he  opposed,  and  of  the  candidate's 
friends.  Besides,  under  the  common  practice  of  selling 
votes,  it  was,  of  course,  a  simple  matter  to  watch  whether 
the  voter  kept  his  part  of  the  bargain.  The  opportunity  of 
fraud  was  further  increased  by  giving  the  alderman  full 
charge  of  elections  in  his  ward.2  He  fixed  the  time  and 
place  of  the  polls,  registered  the  voters,  recorded  their 
choice  for  office,  and  submitted  the  returns  to  the  common 
council. 

The  viv&-voce  method  and  the  aldermanic  management  of 
elections  conduced  toward  permanence  of  tenure  for  mem- 
bers of  the  common  council.  This  is  clearly  shown  by  an 
examination  of  the  terms  of  office  among  the  aldermen, 
especially  conspicuous  being  the  case  of  Gerardus  Stuy- 
vesant,  who  was  elected  alderman  of  the  Out  Ward  for 
thirty-two  consecutive  years.3  The  tenure  of  a  common 

1  Independent  Reflector,  July  5,  1753. 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  p.  232.  8  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  294  et  seq. 


50          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [250 

councilman  averaged  four  years,  that  of  an  alderman  from. 
six  to  seven.  Members  of  the  common  council  were 
usually  re-elected  without  opposition,  an  opponent  being 
raised  against  a  magistrate  only  when  his  acts  had  proven 
objectionable  to  some  of  his  constituents. 

But,  as  time  passed,  the  power  of  the  lower  class  in- 
creased, encroaching  upon  the  upper-class  domination  in 
religion  and  in  politics.1  In  New  York,  preeminently,  the 
corrupt  methods  of  political  management  were  bitterly  at- 
tacked. The  injustice  of  the  open  ballot  was  especially  felt 
by  many  right-minded  persons,  and  a  number  of  them  ex- 
pressed their  views  in  a  petition  addressed  to  their  fellow- 
citizens.  In  support  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  calling  for 
secret  balloting,  the  following  reasons  were  advanced : 

ist.  Such  a  Law,  will  in  a  great  Measure  prevent  Tumults,. 
Riots  and  Disorders,  at  Elections. 

2d.  It  will  prevent  Men  of  Property,  Power  &  Tyranical 
Dispositions,  from  prostituting  their  Wealth  and  Influence,  in 
giving  Weight  to  their  threats,  and  thereby  intimidating  the 
Electors  from  a  free  Disposal  of  their  Votes,  according  to  their 
Understandings  and  Consciences  .  .  .  And  effectually  Screen 
all  honest  Burgers  and  Tradesmen,  who  may  incline  to  Vote 
contrary  to  the  Sentiments,  of  their  Employers  or  Landlords, 
from  their  Resentment :  and  therefore  Place  them  on  a  footing 
with  the  Richest  of  their  Fellow-Citizens  in  Elections. 

3d.  It  will  in  a  great  Measure,  prevent  that  Dangerous  and 
Detestable  Practice  of  Bribery  and  Corruption,  which  has  been 
so  successfully  practiced.2 

The  bill,  however,  was  lost  in  the  legislature. 

Though  the  provincial  legislature  refused  to  substitute 

1  Ecclesiastical  Records:  State  of  New  York  (Albany,  1901-1905),. 
vol.  vi,  p.  4179. 

8  Broadside,  dated  1770,  in  Library  of  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 


251]  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  51 

the  secret  ballot  for  open  voting,  the  popular  agitation  was 
not  without  result,  for  other  election  reforms  were  insti- 
tuted. In  1771  the  general  assembly  amended  the  sections 
of  the  city  charter  dealing  with  municipal  elections.1  The 
aldermen  were  deprived  of  the  right  to  manage  the  ward 
elections.  Instead,  the  common  council  was  to  hold  a 
meeting  at  least  eight  days  before  elections,  designate  a 
suitable  place  for  the  polls  in  each  ward,  and  appoint  a  free- 
man or  freeholder  who  was  a  resident  of  the  ward,  as  re- 
turning officer  for  his  particular  district.2  In  this  capacity 
he  exercised  powers  held  previously  by  the  alderman,  such 
as  conducting  the  elections,  and  reporting  the  returns  to  the 
common  council.  Qualifications  for  voting  in  New  York 
were  for  the  first  time  clearly  defined;  the  nature  of  a  free- 
hold, as  well  as  the  position  of  a  freeman,  was  described 
with  preciseness.  Provision  was  also  made  to  eliminate 
"  repeating "  as  well  as  false  registration  at  the  polls. 
Every  voter  had  to  take  oath  or  make  affirmation  that  he 
"  had  not  been  before  Polled,"  and  any  one  making  a  false 
oath  or  inducing  another  to  commit  such  an  offence  was 
liable  to  indictment  and  trial  on  the  charge  of  perjury. 

Municipal  elections  of  this  period  were  influenced  to  a 
large  extent  by  the  economic  and  religious  interests  of  the 
day.  On  the  basis  of  occupation,  the  male  inhabitants  of 
the  city  were  grouped  into  six  general  divisions,  as  follows : 
merchants,  crown  officers,  land  owners,  lawyers,  shopkeep^ 
ers,  and  artisans.  Our  review  of  "  Commerce  and  Indus- 
try "  will  make  it  clear  that  the  merchant  class  was  by  far 
the  most  powerful.  The  rapidly  growing  trade  of  the  port 
of  New  York  brought  wealth  to  many  inhabitants.  Son 
usually  followed  father  in  an  established  mercantile  busi- 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  228-236.        2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  313-314. 


g2          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [252 

ness,  so  that  family  fortunes  tended  to  increase.  These 
rich  merchant  households  were  often  united  by  inter- 
marriage, and  thus,  through  common  economic  and  family 
ties,  were  formed  combinations  potent  in  politics  as  well  as 
in  business.1 

There  were  but  three  other  classes  in  New  York  society 
which  could  be  compared  in  dignity  with  the  merchants, 
namely,  the  crown  officers,  the  large  landowners,  and  the 
lawyers.  Indeed,  so  binding  was  caste  that  marriage  into 
another  group  was  denied  social  sanction.  Despite  the 
social  influence  of  the  crown  officers  and  the  landowners, 
however,  they  exerted  slight  influence  on  municipal  politics. 
The  former  were  more  interested  in  the  game  of  provincial 
affairs,  where  stakes  were  richer,  and  few  cared  even  to  be- 
come freemen  of  the  city.  Now  and  then,  we  do  find  these 
individuals  taking  part  in  local  politics,  but  such  instances 
are  rare.  Large  landowners  formed  but  a  minor  portion 
of  the  city's  population.  These  two  classes  may  have  ex- 
erted an  influence  over  the  designation  of  mayor  and  of 
recorder,  since  these  were  appointees  of  the  governor,  but 
we  may  regard  crown  officers  and  large  landowners  as  neg- 
ligible factors  in  municipal  elections. 

Far  different  was  the  power  of  the  lawyers  of  the  city. 
Although  numerically  small,  they  formed  the  most  influen- 
tial class  after  the  merchants.  At  first,  these  two  groups, 
having  many  interests  in  common,  joined  forces  in  holding 
both  provincial  and  municipal  governments  to  conservative 
policies.  But  after  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
issues  arose  which  severed  this  alliance.  So  wide  did  the 
breach  become  that  the  period  from  1750  to  the  Revolution 
witnessed  a  bitter  struggle  between  merchant  and  lawyer 

1  Becker,  History  of  Political  Parties  in  the  Province  of  New  York, 
1760-1776  (Madison,  Wisconsin,  1909),  pp.  8-n.  See  also  article  by 
the  same  author  in  The  American  Historical  Review,  vol.  vii,  pp.  59,  261. 


253]  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  53 

for  supremacy  in  the  councils  of  the  government,  the  for- 
mer generally  holding  fast  to  the  conservative  side,  the 
latter  proceeding  more  and  more  toward  radicalism.  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  Cadwallader  Golden  paid  the  legal  profes- 
sion a  grudging  tribute  when  he  solemnly  assured  Lord 
Halifax  that  the 

dangerous  influence  it  had  obtained  [throve]  in  the  province 
of  New  York  more  than  in  any  other  part  of  His  Majesty's 
dominions,  [adding  that]  in  a  Country  like  this,  where  few 
men,  except  in  the  profession  of  the  Law,  have  any  kind  of 
literature,  where  the  most  opulent  families,  in  our  memory, 
have  arisen  from  the  lowest  rank  of  the  people,  such  associa- 
tion must  have  more  influence  than  can  be  easily  imagined.  .  .  . 
Their  power  is  greatly  strengthened  by  inlarging  the  powers  of 
the  popular  side  of  the  government.1  [In  conclusion,  he 
stated  that]  all  Associations  are  dangerous  to  good  Govern- 
ment, and  more  so  in  distant  dominions,  and  Associations  of 
lawyers  the  most  dangerous  of  any  next  to  Military. 

The  above-mentioned  groups  composed  the  upper  division 
of  society,  while  the  remaining  freeholders  and  freemen 
formed  the  great  middle  class.  These  freeholders  included 
owners  of  small  farms  in  the  Out  Ward,  the  rural  section 
of  Manhattan,  together  with  those  citizens  who  possessed 
houses  or  lots  in  the  lower  districts  of  the  city.  The  free- 
men of  this  class  embraced  shopkeepers,  bakers,  butchers, 
millers,  innkeepers,  carpenters,  bricklayers,  painters,  and 
artisans  in  general.2 

The  right  of  suffrage  stopped  with  this  group.  Next 
below  it  came  poorer  freeholders  whose  dwellings  either 
were  valued  at  less  than  £40  each,  or  were  encumbered  with 
mortgages.  Along  with  them  may  be  classed  such  workers 

1  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  vii,  p.  705. 

*  Freemen  of  N.  Y.  (Coll.  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society)  gives  the  names  and 
occupations  of  freemen  admitted  to  the  commonalty. 


54          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [254 

as  did  not  possess  the  freemanship,  including  clerks,  labor- 
ers and  journeymen  who  toiled  for  merchants  or  for  free- 
men more  nearly  independent.  This  third  class  went  by 
several  names,  being  officially  known  as  the  "  inhabitants," 
or  more  commonly  the  "  mechanics."  As  these  persons 
did  not  possess  the  right  to  vote,  they  may  be  regarded  as 
inconsequential  in  colonial  elections.  However,  this  group 
was  destined  to  be  the  determining  factor  in  the  revolution- 
ary movement  in  the  city  of  New  York.1 

The  population  was  also  divided  on  the  basis  of  religious 
denominations  into  several  groups  having  different  degrees 
of  political  influence.  Anglicanism,  introduced  with  the 
English  occupation  of  New  York,  by  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  was  firmly  planted  in  the  city.2  Its 
power  was  continually  augmented  by  the  fostering  care  of 
crown  officers.  In  the  words  of  a  contemporary  critic,  "  its 
adherents  have  the  civil  government  chiefly  in  their  hands. 
In  short,  in  regard  to  all  political  rights,  this  Church  has 
all  privileges  imaginable  above  other  denominations."  * 
The  strength  of  the  Episcopalians  lay  not  in  their  numbers, 
for  it  is  estimated  that  they  formed  but  one-tenth  of  the 
total  population.4  Other  factors,  however,  placed  the 
Church  of  England  in  a  position  of  ascendancy.  It  was 
strengthened  by  the  power  and  the  wealth  of  its  communi- 
cants, among  whom  were  generally  the  governor  and  other 
high  colonial  officers,  together  with  "  a  numerous  train  of 
rich  and  affluent  merchants,  and  landholders." B  The 

1  Dawson,  Westehester-County,  New  York,  during  The  American  Re- 
volution (N.  Y.,  1886),  p.  4,  note  3. 

2  Dix,  History  of  the  Parish  of  Trinity  Church  in  the  City  of  New 
York  (N.  Y.,  1898-1906),  vol.  i,  op.  cit.,  passim. 

*  Eccles.  Recs.,  vol.  vi,  p.  3965.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  3612. 

•Jones,  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  vol.  i,  p.  4.  Flick,  Loyalism  in  New  York 
during  the  American  Revolution  (N.  Y.,  1901),  pp.  9-10. 


255]  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  55 

supremacy  of  Anglicanism  was  due  also  to  its  centralized 
form  of  church  organization.  In  fact,  New  York  city  was 
made  the  base  of  the  movement  to  spread  Anglican  in- 
fluence into  other  colonies.  Here  was  usually  held  the  an- 
nual convention  of  Episcopal  ministers  from  New  York. 
Connecticut  and  New  Jersey.1 

Anglicanism,  assured  in  its  power,  wealth  and  organiza- 
tion, found  among  nonconformist  denominations  of  the 
city  one  aggressive  rival  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
strength  of  this  church  also  lay  to  some  extent  in  its  organ- 
ization, and  still  more  in  its  numbers.  With  a  college  in 
New  Jersey  to  supply  trained  leaders,  and  with  its  synodical 
form  of  ecclesiastical  government,  this  church,  in  the  later 
years  of  the  colonial  period,  was  capable  of  forceful,  con- 
certed action.  After  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
it  outnumbered  in  membership  the  communicants  of  the 
Church  of  England.2  Its  followers  were  drawn  mainly 
from  the  middle  class ;  but  even  Judge  Thomas  Jones,  who 
harbored  no  kindly  feelings  toward  Presbyterianism,  ad- 
mitted that  "  there  belonged  to  it  some  rich,  wealthy,  sen- 
sible men."  s  The  expansion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
was  due  to  the  accession  of  many  Scottish  and  Scotch-Irish 
immigrants  and  of  persons  of  the  "  Puritan  type,"  com- 
ing into  New  York  from  New  England.* 

Next,  in  order  of  importance,  was  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church.6  In  the  early  days  of  New  Amsterdam,  it  had 
been  all-controlling;  but,  after  the  province  changed  pro- 

-1  Journal,  May  19,  1768. 

2Eccles.  Recs.,  vol.  v,  p.  3612;  vi,  p.  3965.  Sedgwick,  A  Memoir  of 
the  Life  of  William  Livingston  (N.  Y.,  1833),  p.  78. 

*  Jones,  op,  cit.,  p.  2. 

*Briggs,  American  Presbyterianism  (N.  Y..  1885),  pp.  99-108. 

5Corwin,  Manual  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  1628-1902  (N. 
Y.,  1902),  pp.  102-116. 


56          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [256 

prietorship  from  Dutch  to  English  hands,  the  old  church 
declined  in  influence,  and  old  customs  were  gradually  sup- 
planted by  new.  The  English  language,  in  time,  became 
more  and  more  commonly  spoken,  until,  in  1731,  the  use  of 
the  Dutch  tongue  in  the  courts  was  entirely  prohibited,1 
and  toward  the  middle  of  the  century  it  could  be  under- 
stood only  by  older  inhabitants  who  still  cherished  the  tra- 
ditions of  New  Amsterdam.2  The  Dutch  Church  failed  to 
keep  abreast  of  these  changes,  clinging  instead  to  the  old 
tongue  and  using  it  exclusively  in  formal  services.  It  was 
largely  unintelligible  to  the  younger  members,  who  con- 
sequently drifted  away  to  Anglican  or  Presbyterian 
churches.  Commenting  upon  this,  Kalm  said  that  the 
younger  generation  "  begin  however  by  degrees  to  change 
their  manners  and  opinions;  chiefly  indeed  in  the  town  and 
in  its  neighborhood ;  for  the  most  of  the  young  people  now 
speak  principally  English,  and  go  only  to  the  English 
church;  and  would  even  take  it  amiss  if  they  were  called 
Dutchmen  and  not  English."  3  The  consistory  of  the  Dutch 
Church  was  fully  sensible  of  its  growing  weakness,  and  the 
progressive  element  labored  hard  to  reform  the  services. 
At  one  meeting,  a  remedy  was  proposed  which,  it  was 
hoped,  might  prove  effective  in  a  time  of  diminishing  church 
attendance.  Upon  the  persuasion  of  the  elders,  the  consis- 
tory issued  a  request  that  all  ministers  limit  their  sermon  to- 
one  hour,  in  order  "  to  increase  the  audiences  and  hold  the 
people  together,  and  so  enlarge  the  alms  and  other  revenue 
of  the  church."  4  The  question  of  the  continued  use  of  the 
Dutch  language  in  services  split  the  church  into  two  hostile 

1  Eccles.  Recs.,  vol.  iv,  p.  2563. 

*lbid.,  pp.  2563;  vi,  pp.  3964-3965- 

8  Kalm,  Travels  into  North  America  (London,  1770),  vol.  i,  p.  269. 

*  Eccles.  Re£S.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  2955-2956. 


257]  POLITICAL  ASPECTS  57 

factions,  causing  serious  internal  dissension.  Again,  as  this 
denomination  looked  to  Holland  for  direction  in  church 
administration,  it  was  bound  to  lack  organization  and  initia- 
tive. Nor  had  it  a  college  in  America  for  supplying  leaders 
until  the  establishment  of  Queen's  (now  Rutgers)  College, 
in  1770;  and,  to  make  matters  worse,  progressive  ministers 
were  frequently  censured  and  not  seldom  dismissed,  with  the 
result  that  many  congregations  were  left  without  pastors.1 
With  neither  classis  nor  synod,  the  Reformed  Church  fell 
indeed  into  an  enfeebled  condition.  The  decay  of  this  church 
was  not  due  to  lack  of  members  or  of  wealth,  for  it  possessed 
both  of  these  elements,  which  usually  make  for  ecclesiastical 
strength.  Even  to  the  end  of  the  colonial  period  it  was 
numerically  powerful.  Those  who  visited  the  city,  even  in 
late  years,  noted  that  the  population  was  essentially  Dutch, 
Kalm  stating  that  the  "  inhabitants,  both  of  the  town  and 
of  the  province  belonging  to  it,  are  yet  for  the  greatest  part 
Dutchmen."  2  Furthermore,  Judge  Jones  gave  it  a  high 
rank  because  of  "  its  riches,  its  influence  and  .  .  .  the  num- 
ber of  its  wealthy,  opulent  and  reputable  citizens."  3  Un- 
fortunately, it  lacked  young  blood. 

Fourth  in  rank  was  the  Lutheran  Church.  Planted  dur- 
ing the  early  Dutch  period,  it  was  continually  nurtured  by 
the  increasing  flow  of  German  immigrants.  Their  numbers 
and  influence,  usually  underrated,  may  be  estimated  from 
statistics  on  naturalization  which  indicate  that  among  220 
residents  of  New  York  City,  naturalized  between  the  years 
1740  and  1769,  there  were  109  Lutherans.1 

The  remaining  religious  denominations  exerted  little  or 

1  Eccles.  Recs.,  vol.  v,  p.  3649.  *  Kalm,  op.  cit.,  p.  269. 

8  Jones,  op.  cit.,  p.  2. 

*New  York  naturalization  statistics,  giving  names,  etc.,  of  persons 
naturalized,  1740-1769;  manuscript  in  N.  Y.  Pub.  Library. 


58          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [258 

no  influence  over  political  conditions.  There  were  a 
few  Roman  Catholics,  Quakers  and  Moravians.  A  Calvin- 
ist  Reformed  Church  was  supported  by  Germans,  and  a 
church  for  Huguenots,  or  French  Protestants,  existed;  but 
both  of  these  showed  a  tendency  to  unite  with  the  English 
bodies,  the  Germans  with  the  Presbyterians,  the  French 
with  the  Anglicans.1  Methodists  and  Baptists  each  had 
only  one  small  meeting  house.2  Jews,  although  numerous, 
lost  political  privilege  after  1737. 

Owing  to  the  strength  of  social  and  political  privilege, 
certain  economic  groups  and  religious  denominations  pos- 
sessed influence  over  the  municipal  government  far  out  of 
proportion  to  their  numbers.  This  was  especially  true  of 
the  merchant  class  and  of  the  Anglican  Church.  These  con- 
ditions become  somewhat  more  apparent  from  the  following 
data  concerning  such  leading  members  of  the  corporation 
as  mayor,  recorder  and  town  clerk,  who  held  office  between 
1731  and  1776. 

We  thus  see  that  in  the  period  under  review  the  governor 
generally  selected  for  mayor  of  the  city  some  prominent 
merchant,  the  only  departure  from  this  policy  occurring  in 
later  years  when  Whitehead  Hicks  and  David  Matthews, 
both  lawyers,  were  chosen  for  the  mayoralty.  Recorders, 
also  appointed  by  the  governor,  were,  by  necessity,  of  the 
legal  profession,  for,  as  we  have  seen  above,  the  office  re- 
quired men  with  such  training.  But  at  the  same  time  care 
was  usually  taken  to  select  a  lawyer  of  the  Anglican  creed. 
The  clerks  of  the  common  council  likewise  were  Episco- 
palians. Regarding  the  common  council,  our  data  is  some- 
what incomplete,  but  it  is  certain  that  the  merchants  did  not 
hold  exclusive  control.  Yet,  as  a  class,  they  possessed  lead- 

1  Eccles.  Recs.,  vol.  v,  p.  3649. 

1  Roosevelt,  New  York  (N.  Y.,  1891),  p.  90. 


259] 


POLITICAL  ASPECTS 


59 


NAMES  AND  OCCUPATIONS  OF  MAYORS,  RECORDERS  AND  TOWN  CLERKS  OF  THE 
CITY  OF  NEW  YORK,  BETWEEN    1731   AND  1776 


OFFICE 


NAME 


OCCUPATION1 


Mayor 


Robert  Lurting*  . 

Paul  Richard 

John  Cruger,  ist  . 
Stephen  Bayard*. 
Edward  Holland* 
John  Cruger,  2d. . 
Whitehead  Hicks 
David  Matthews  . 


Merchant 


Unknown 
Merchant 
Lawyer 


Recorder 


Francis  Harison 

Daniel  Horsmanden*. 

Simon  Johnson 

Thomas  Jones 

Robert  R.  Livingston* 
John  Watts,  Jr 


Town  Clerk 


William  Sharpas* 

John  Chambers* 

Augustus  Van  Cortlandt* . 


ing  rank ;  the  lawyers  following.  However,  the  small  shop- 
keepers and  artisans,  on  occasions  when  they  combined,  were 
usually  strong  enough  to  act  as  a  check  upon  the  upper  class.  * 
At  no  time,  even  in  the  later  period,  were  the  Anglicans 
able  to  boast  of  a  majority  of  members  of  their  persuasion 
in  the  common  council.  Here  lay  the  strength  of  the 
Dutch  Church,  which  could  point  with  pardonable  pride  to 
the  large  number  of  its  elders  and  deacons  on  the  city 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  p.  150. 

5  Freemen  of  New  York,  op.  cit.,  passim. 

1  In  the  election  of  1734  seven  merchants,  who  were  members  of  the 
common  council,  were  defeated  for  reelection  by  the  votes  of  the 
artisan  class.  Journal,  Oct.  7,  1734.  See  also  broadsides,  dated  Sept. 
1734,  in  N.  Y.  Public  Library. 

*  Member  of  the  vestry  of  Trinity  Parish.  Dix,  Hist,  of  Trinity 
Parish,  vol.  iv,  pp.  572-583. 


60          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [26o 

board. l  Though  its  power  was  gradually  declining,  this 
denomination  retained  its  hold  on  the  common  council 
until  past  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the 
rapidly  developing  strength  of  the  Presbyterians  asserted 
itself  in  local  political  circles. 

1  Eccles.  Recs.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  2747-2750. 


CHAPTER  III 
TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 

OF  late  years  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  increase  the 
governmental  regulation  of  industrial  activities.  Recent 
trust  decisions,  factory  laws,  local  health  ordinances,  and  the 
like,  testify  to  this  development.  It  is  a  reaction  from  the 
laissez-faire  policy  which  forbade  governments  to  interfere 
in  business  enterprises.  But  the  early  eighteenth  century 
was  not  influenced  by  any  doctrine  of  laissez  faire  being 
still  dominated  by  the  mercantilism  of  previous  centuries. 
Inasmuch  as  this  theory  called  for  a  strict  supervision  of 
commerce  and  industry,  we  may  expect  to  find  the  municipal 
and  provincial  governments  of  New  York  interested  in 
such  matters. 

Before  examining  common  council  regulations  regard- 
ing the  business  activities  of  citizens,  it  is  well  to  describe, 
in  the  first  place,  the  various  kinds  of  circulating  media  of 
exchange  which  were  then  in  use.  The  strong  box  of  a  New 
York  merchant  before  the  Revolution  held  wampum,  coin 
and  paper.  Wampum,  the  money  of  the  Indians,  was  ac- 
cepted as  currency  until  late  in  the  colonial  period,  when  it 
was  superseded  by  metallic  money.1  Gold,  silver  and  copper 
specie  of  the  greatest  variety  circulated  throughout  the  colo- 
nies. Gold  pieces  such  as  British  guineas,  Spanish  pistoles, 
Portuguese  moidores,  together  with  silver  and  copper  coins, 
found  their  way  into  New  York  through  its  extensive  for- 
eign trade.2  The  evils  of  paper  money  were  not  as  wide- 

1  Burnaby,  Travels  through  the  middle  settlements  of  North  America 
in  the  years  1759  and  1760  (London,  1798),  pp.  80-81. 

2  Stevens,  Colonial  Records  of  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce 
1768-1784  (N.  Y.,  1867),  pp.  316-317. 

261]  6 1 


62 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [262 


spread  in  New  York  as  in  New  England,  though  provincial 
bills  of  credit  circulated  freely.  The  annual  issue  at  times 
exceeded  £100,000,  but  the  amount  canceled  was  corres- 
pondingly large,  this  redemption  being  made  possible  by 
levies  on  the  commerce  coming  into  the  port  of  New  York. 

Counterfeiting  added  to  the  confusion  in  money  chang- 
ing. The  prevalence  of  this  evil  is  proven  by  court  records 
and  by  newspapers  of  the  day.  In  the  municipal  court  of 
general  sessions  batches  of  bad  money  were  frequently  con- 
demned and  ordered  burnt.  The  Post-Boy  warns  its  read- 
ers against  counterfeit  forty-shilling  bills  "  artfully  done,"" 
pointing  out  that  "  Persons  of  small  Attention  cannot  read- 
ily apprehend  the  Fraud."  * 

With  a  river  navigable  for  the  largest  ships  on  each  side, 
and  protected  by  a  splendid  bay,  Manhattan  Island  has  be- 
come the  commercial  capital  of  the  western  hemisphere. 
The  advantages  of  New  York  harbor  were  early  recognized 
by  merchants  and  travelers.  Peter  Kalm,  who  visited  the 
city  in  1748,  commented  upon  the  favorable  position  of  a 
town  situated  so  near  to  the  ocean  and  also  at  the  mouth 
of  a  river  which  penetrated  deeply  into  the  interior.2 

The  extent  of  New  York's  commerce  at  various  times 
during  the  colonial  period  may  be  seen  from  the  following 
table  : 

COMMERCE  OF  NEW  YORK  BETWEEN   1746  AND  1772  3 


1746 

1749 

1762 

1772 

QO 

I  <\7 

477 

7OO 

6406 

ICKId 

2QI  32 

7cc 

1228 

I4OOO 

r  -JQOO 

CAQOO 

267000 

480000 

7O7O 

34397 

1  Post-Boy,  Jan.  28,  1754. 

*Kalm,  Travels  into  North  America,  vol.  i,  p.  247. 
*  Doc.  Hist.,  vol.  i,  pp.  493,  513.    Chadbourne  and  Moore,  Public  Ser- 
vice of  the  State  of  New  York  (Boston,  1882),  vol.  i,  p.  411. 


263]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  63 

On  the  basis  of  tonnage  leaving  the  colonies,  New  York,  in 
1733,  ranked  third,  with  Boston  first  and  Philadelphia  next. 
Within  ten  years  New  York  passed  Philadelphia,  although 
during  the  colonial  period  it  never  distanced  Boston. 

This  commerce  varied  in  nature.  From  all  quarters  of 
the  globe  came  vessels  laden  with  West  Indian  molasses, 
sugar  and  tropical  fruits,  Jamaica  rum,  Madeira  wine  and 
silks  from  India.1  The  African  slave  trade  in  the  later 
colonial  period  was  comparatively  slight,  for  between  the 
years  1746  and  1749  only  forty-nine  slaves  were  entered  at 
the  port.2  In  exchange  for  all  these  imports,  New  York 
exported  mainly  foodstuffs  such  as  grain,  flour,  meat  and 
fish,  6,731  tons  of  provisions  leaving  the  port  of  New  York 
in  I749-8  To  the  mother  country  skins  and  naval  stores 
were  sent  in  abundance. 

Both  municipal  and  provincial  governments  regulated  ex- 
ports. Meat  packing,  an  important  industry  of  the  city,  was 
carefully  supervised  by  the  common  council.  All  cattle 
were  transported  across  the  rivers  and  landed  only  at  speci- 
ally designated  wharves  near  the  public  slaughter  houses, 
which  were  purposely  located  close  to  the  shore.  The 
slaughter  houses  were  leased  to  keepers,  paid  by  the  butchers 
at  the  rate  of  one  shilling  for  every  animal  killed  and 
dressed.4 

The  condition  of  the  public  slaughter  houses  was  not  al- 
ways satisfactory.  Insufficient  tackle,  rings,  and  staples 
made  dangerous  the  work  of  the  butchers,  several  of  whom 
narrowly  escaped  being  gored.5  Furthermore,  the  roofs 

1  Doc.  Hist.,  vol.  i,  p.  493. 

IWinsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America  (Boston  and 
N.  Y.,  1887),  vol.  v,  p.  228. 

5  Burke,  An  Account  of  the  European  Settlements  in  America  (Lon- 
don, 1757),  vol.  ii,  p.  185.  4M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  129. 

5  Complaint  of  butchers  against  public  slaughter  houses,  in  filed 
papers,  city  clerk's  office. 


64          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURA      [264 

sometimes  leaked,  doors  were  often  missing,  and  the  flooring 
badly  broken,  so  that  meat  unspoiled  by  rains  was  not 
seldom  stolen  by  dogs  and  thieves. 

In  1750  Nicholas  Bayard,  a  member  of  the  common 
council,  asked  permission  to-  erect  a  public  slaughter  house 
and  pen  on  his  land  in  the  Out  Ward  to  the  north  of  Fresh 
Water  Pond.1  This  was  granted,  and  Bayard  received  a 
lease  for  twenty-one  years  on  the  same  terms  allowed  to 
John  Kelly,  former  lessee  of  the  public  slaughter  houses. 
In  time  Bayard  obtained  a  complete  monopoly  of  this  busi- 
ness, for  all  cattle  had  to  be  killed  at  his  place,  the  older 
public  slaughter  houses  being  abandoned.  Besides,  no 
slaughtering  was  permitted  in  any  other  part  of  the  city  on 
penalty  of  a  ten-shilling  fine.  But,  as  violations  of  this 
ordinance  continued  in  the  Out  Ward,  the  common  coun- 
cil imposed  a  fine  of  twenty  shillings  upon  any  one  who 
permitted  the  use  of  his  barn,  stable  or  other  property  to 
other  persons  for  killing  cattle.2  On  the  expiration  of  his 
lease,  Bayard  sought  and  obtained  a  renewal  for  eighteen 
years.3  But  as  he  neglected  to  clean  the  building  and  sup- 
ply the  necessary  equipment,  his  exclusive  privilege  aroused 
vigorous  opposition,  and  several  petitions  were  presented 
to  the  common  council  from  persons  desiring  to  slaughter 
animals  on  their  own  property  in  the  Out  Ward.  Twice 
the  board  deferred  action,  but  was  eventually  compelled  to 
yield.4  However,  indiscriminate  slaughtering  of  cattle  was 
prohibited  save  in  the  Out  Ward. 

The  inspecting,  casking  and  marking  of  all  dressed  meat 
for  the  export  trade  was  likewise  regulated  by  the  common 

1 M ,  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  303,  357. 
'Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  25-26,  76,  117-118. 
9 1  bid.,  pp.  94,  107-108,  161. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  246,  252,  287-288. 


.265]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  65 

council.  The  shipping  of  unwholesome  beef  or  pork  was 
punishable  by  a  fine  of  £5.*  After  the  meat  had  been  ex- 
amined and  passed  upon,  it  was  packed  in  wooden  casks 
having  a  capacity  of  thirty  gallons.  As  competition  for  the 
West  Indian  markets  became  keener,  the  common  council, 
probably  with  a  view  to  holding  this  trade,  compelled  the 
use  of  a  cask  of  thirty-one  and  one-half  gallons.2  This 
provision  was  incorporated  in  a  provincial  statute  which 
further  specified  that  each  barrel  was  to  be  trodden  down  at 
least  twice  and  to  contain  not  less  than  one-half  bushel  of 
salt.3  This  system  of  measurement  proved  very  loose,  for 
-casks  often  fell  short  of  the  legal  quantity,  much  to  the 
"  Discredit  of  the  said  Staple  Commodities  of  this  Colony 
at  foreign  markets."  *  The  common  council  therefore 
determined  to  standardize  not  according  to  size,  but  accord- 
ing to  weight,  and  ordered  that  a  full  barrel  contain  either 
220  pounds  of  beef  or  210  pounds  of  pork.  When  all 
specifications  were  fulfilled,  the  casks  were  branded  "  New- 
York  "  by  one  of  the  municipal  inspectors,  or  "  gaugers," 
who  collected  fees  for  this  service  from  the  exporters.5 

Although  the  shipment  of  meat  was  large,  the  greatest 
istaple  of  the  city  was  flour,  of  which  80,000  barrels  were 
exported  annually.6  For  many  years  the  millers  of  the  city 
had  enjoyed  a  monopoly  of  bolting  and  packing  flour  for 
exportation,  and  considerable  capital  was  invested  in  this 
business,  the  regulation  of  which  was  retained  by  the  pro- 
vincial authorities.7  Their  supervision  proved  inefficient 

i M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  95.  'Ibid.,  p.  306. 

*  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  77-79,  34& 

*  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  239-241. 
»/&«/.,  p.  161. 

*  Smith,  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  vol.  i,  p.  331. 

3  Spencer  in  Pol.  Sci.  Quart.,  vol.  xxx,  p.  400. 


66          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [266 

and  called  forth  much  criticism  both  from  consumers  abroad 
and  from  merchants  at  home.  So  poor  was  the  flour  ex- 
ported by  New  York  dealers,  that  they  were  openly  stigma- 
tized "  cheats  "  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  West  Indies.  This 
state  of  affairs  impelled  a  number  of  leading  New  York 
citizens,  including  William  Smith,  Paul  Richard,  Robert 
Livingston,  Philip  French  and  Mordecai  Gomez,  to  urge 
upon  the  common  council,  the  necessity  of  passing  an  or- 
dinance against  "  selling  and  Buying  for  Exportation 
Flour  not  Merchantable  whereby  the  Credit  of  the  Trade 
of  this  City  in  one  of  its  most  Considerable  Branches  is 
Very  much  Lessened,  and  .  .  .  will  in  a  short  time  be  wholly 
Ruin'd  unless  some  Speedy  Method  be  fallen  upon  to  pre- 
vent such  Frauds  and  Abuses  for  the  future."  x  This  ad- 
dress was  referred  to  a  committee,  but  no  action  was  taken. 
In  1735  another  petition  was  submitted  to  the  board,  and  a 
committee  was  instructed  to  draft  an  ordinance  whereby 
"  the  Reputation  of  the  City  in  its  Trade  and  Commerce 
may  be  better  Established."  However,  mindful  of  pro- 
vincial prerogative,  the  corporation  carefully  refrained 
from  any  specific  action  as  to  flour. 

In  the  absence  of  municipal  ordinances  regarding  the  ex- 
portation of  flour,  repeated  efforts  were  made  by  the  mer- 
chants of  the  city  to  secure  adequate  provincial  regulation. 
Accordingly,  Governor  Cosby,  in  1734  and  1736,  and  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  Clarke,  in  1741,  laid  the  matter  before 
the  assembly.3  At  the  same  time  the  representatives  from 
the  city  prepared  bills,  none  of  which  succeeded  in  passing 
the  lower  house.  In  1750  increased  pressure  was  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  assembly.  It  received  from  a  grand  jury, 
sitting  in  New  York  city,  a  remonstrance  pointing  out  the 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  169-170.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  251-252. 

*  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  i,  pp.  563,  et.  seq. 


267]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  67 

need  of  regulation  over  staple  commodities.1  This  state- 
ment was  also  substantiated  in  a  long  petition,  signed  by  the 
leading  merchants  of  the  city.  In  the  end  the  legislature 
enacted  a  law  which  compelled  all  bakers  and  bolters  of  the 
city  to  register  their  names  and  brand  marks  with  the  clerk 
of  the  municipal  court.2  Notwithstanding  these  rules,  we 
are  told,  "Great  abuses"  had  been  "committed  in  the  Manu- 
facturing of  Flour  "  and  this  great  "  Staple  of  the  Colony  " 
had  "  in  a  very  considerable  Degree  lost  its  reputation  " 
in  all  places  to  which  it  had  "  usually  been  exported."  s  To 
remedy  these  evils,  the  legislature  finally  enacted  several 
regulations  regarding  the  quality  of  flour.  In  1771  it  dealt 
the  shipping  interests  of  the  city  a  severe  blow  by  appointing 
inspectors  of  flour  and  repackers  of  beef  and  pork  in  Albany, 
Orange,  Ulster,  and  Dutchess  Counties.4  This  was  done  to 
overcome  the  inconvenience  of  unloading  cargoes  at  New 
York,  a  practice  of  many  years'  standing.  The  effect  of  this 
law  was  to  break  the  monopoly  enjoyed  by  the  city. 

The  city's  regulation  of  the  quality  of  flour  and  bread  for 
the  export  trade  was  limited  by  the  province ;  but  the  form- 
er's control  over  foodstuffs  for  local  consumption  was  com- 
plete. The  exacting  assizes  fixing  the  quality,  size  and  price 
of  bread,  passed  in  the  earlier  period,  were  continued  with 
unabated  strictness.5  The  price  and  size  of  loaves  varied 
with  the  cost  of  flour,  for,  when  wheat  sold  at  four  shillings 
a  bushel,  bakers  were  permitted  to  charge  one  penny  for  a 
loaf  of  the  best  white  bread  weighing  ten  and  one-half 
ounces,  whereas  with  wheat  down  to  three  shillings  six 
pence,  bread  was  to  weigh  eleven  and  one-half  ounces.* 

1  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  294-295. 

2  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  788-793.   Minutes  of  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions, 
March  21,  1751. 

8  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  1096-1098.          *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  198-202. 
8  Vide  supra.  *M.  C.  C.,  op.  cit.  passim. 


68          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [268 

Rye  bread  was  seldom  included  in  the  regular  assizes,  but 
occasionally  a  separate  statement  of  prices  for  this  com- 
modity was  issued  by  the  common  council.  It  was  sup- 
posed to  draw  up  an  assize  every  three  months,  but  this 
practice  was  not  followed;  for  frequently  rates  were 
changed  twice  within  one  month,  and,  again,  a  half  year 
would  intervene  between  two  assizes.  Every  loaf  offered 
for  sale  was  to  be  marked  with  the  baker's  initials.  In- 
spectors of  bread  were  appointed  by  the  common  council 
to  see  that  the  regulations  of  the  municipal  assizes  were 
faithfully  observed.  A  baker  violating  the  bread  assize  was 
fined  usually  twenty  shillings,  and  the  goods  offered  for  sale 
contrary  to  the  ordinance,  were  forfeited  to  the  poor  of  the 
city.  Bakers  were  not  always  satisfied  with  these  rulings 
of  the  magistrates,  especially  regarding  the  prices  set  by  an 
assize,  and  at  times  combined  to  oppose  the  ordinances.  We 
read  in  the  Journal  that  on  one  occasion  "  there  was  a  gen- 
eral Combination  of  the  Bakers  not  to  Bake,  because  Wheat 
is  at  a  high  price,  which  occasioned  some  Disturbance,  and 
reduced  some,  notwithstanding  their  Riches,  to  a  sudden 
want  of  Bread." 1  The  corporation  possessed  through 
court  procedure  means  which  compelled  observance  of  its 
ordinances.  Such  a  step  was  taken  against  John  Bogert, 
who  was  indicted  by  the  grand  jury  for  selling  unwhole- 
some bread.2  Again,  when  infractions  against  the  by-laws 
were  very  serious,  the  matter  was  taken  before  the  supreme 
court. 

Liquors,  both  imported  and  domestic,  were  consumed  in 
enormous  quantities,  and  were  deemed  by  many  necessary 
accompaniments  to  work  of  every  nature.  Apparently  no 
public  enterprise  could  properly  be  undertaken  without 

1  Journal,  April  20,  1741. 

1  Minutes  of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  May  3,  1744. 


269]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  69 

stimulants  of  some  kind.  Anthony  Ham,  doorkeeper  of  the 
common  council,  was  allowed  to  retail  liquors  gratis,1  and 
when  the  board  made  an  appropriation  for  building  a  ferry 
house,  repairing  a  dock,  or  erecting  a  public  building,  it 
seldom  failed  to  make  an  allowance  for  beer  and  rum  for  the 
workers.2  Again,  Henry  Law,  a  tapster,  was  given  £5  for 
"  divers  Quantitys  of  liquor  Delivered  out  at  the  late  fire  to 
those  who  appeared  to  stand  Greatly  in  need  of  the  Same, 
being  very  Cold  and  Wett."  3  A  more  peculiar  incident  is 
an  order  of  the  common  council,  in  1773,  that  the  sum  of 
£2 :  gl/2 s  be  given  to  John  Simmons  "  for  Liquor  found  for 
the  Jury  who  sat  to  enquire  of  the  Death  of  Mary 
Murphy."  4 

From  the  liquor  traffic  both  the  province  and  the  city 
derived  considerable  revenue,  the  former  levying  an  excise 
tax,  the  latter  requiring  a  license  fee  from  every  dealer. 
The  provincial  excise  tax  was  "  farmed  out "  every  year 
to  the  highest  bidder,  who  was  to  act  as  excise  master.  He 
in  turn  sold  the  privilege  of  retailing  strong  liquors  to  any- 
one who  agreed  to  his  terms.  This  system  proved  unsatis- 
factory, for  it  encouraged  the  increase  of  low  groggeries.5 
The  law  was  also  disadvantageous  to  retailers,  for  they  were 
forced  to  pay  an  exorbitant  sum  to  the  "  farmers  "  of  the 
excise.6  For  these  reasons  this  policy  was  discontinued 
after  1753,  when  the  province  appointed  commissioners  to 
collect  the  excise  tax,  and  for  the  city  of  New  York  it  chose 
the  mayor,  recorder  and  aldermen  as  excise  commissioners. 
In  the  following  year  the  above  mentioned  plan,  so  far  as  it 
related  to  the  city,  was  changed;  for  the  general  assembly 
appointed  two  citizens  as  commissioners.7  This  system  of 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  207.  *  Ibid.,  p.  250. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  211.  *  Ibid.,  p.  440. 
6  Post-Boy,  Jan.  29,  1753. 

*  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  p.  951.  '  Ibid.,  p.  1000. 


70          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [270 

collecting  the  excise  in  the  city,  through  officers  appointed  by 
the  state,  was  continued  after  the  Revolution,  and  in  fact 
remained  in  force  until  I824.1 

The  city  also  possessed  partial  control  over  excise  mat- 
ters. All  retailers  of  liquors  were  obliged  to  secure  licenses 
from  the  mayor,  on  penalty  of  a  fine  of  £$.2  The  extent  of 
the  liquor  traffic  may  be  estimated  from  the  statement  that, 
in  the  year  1772,  the  mayor  issued  396  licenses  to  liquor 
dealers,  thus  averaging  one  to  about  every  55  inhabitants  of 
the  city.3  Other  limitations  were  placed  by  the  common 
council  on  the  sale  of  intoxicants.  The  present  Sunday- 
closing  law  is  not  an  innovation  to  New  York  City,  for,  as 
early  as  1731,  the  board  ordered  that  no  tavern  keepers 
"  suffer  their  Doors  to  be  kept  Open,  or  do  Entertain  or 
Receive  any  Company  into  their  Houses,  and  to  them  Sell 
any  kind  of  Wine,  Beer,  Syder,  Rum,  or  Other  Strong 
Liquors  on  the  Lords  Day,  Called  Sunday,  in  time  of  divine 
service."4  Another  ordinance,  passed  in  1755,  threatened 
severe  punishment  to  any  dealer  who  sold  liquors  to  senti- 
nels of  the  garrison,  in  consequence  "  whereof  many  have 
Lately  Deserted  the  Service  and  many  Breaches  of  the 
peace  Tumults  and  Outrages  have  been  Committed."  ° 

Besides  bread  and  liquors,  foodstuffs  of  all  sorts  were 
sold  at  the  public  markets.  Here  could  be  bought  meats, 
fish,  eggs,  butter,  cheese,  vegetables  and  fruits,  supplied  by 
the  country  people  from  Harlem,  Westchester,  Long  Island, 
and  New  Jersey.  Before  dawn  wagons,  loaded  with  pro- 
visions, rumbled  down  Bloomingdale  Road  into  Broadway, 

1  Fairlie,  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  York  State  (N.  Y., 
1898),  pp.  156-157,  note  3. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  81. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  420.  The  accounts  of  the  mayor  were  entered  in 
the  tavern  keepers'  book,  still  preserved  in  the  comptroller's  office. 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  79.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  44-45. 


271]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  7! 

where  several  of  the  markets  stood.  Also  in  the  early  morn- 
ing hours  a  steady  stream  of  farmers'  carts  made  their  way 
to  the  Brooklyn  Ferry,  where  the  produce  was  transported 
across  the  East  River  to  Manhattan.  A  fleet  of  small  boats, 
filled  with  foodstuffs,  came  down  the  Hudson  daily  from 
Hackensack  and  Tappan  on  the  Jersey  shore,  usually  re- 
turning with  the  flood  tide.1 

In  1730  there  were  five  markets  within  the  city  limits.2 
One  of  these,  the  "  Broad  Street "  market,  was  probably 
used  very  little,  for  it  is  not  mentioned  as  one  of  the  public 
markets  in  the  laws  of  1737,  and  it  is  believed  to  have  been 
torn  down  about  I746.3  The  "Old  Slip"  market,  near 
"  Burger's  Path,"  gradually  declined  in  importance,  and  by 
1737  only  five  stands  in  it  were  leased.  For  a  number  of 
years  the  market  was  more  or  less  neglected,  and  fell  stead- 
ily into  decay.  In  1754  the  common  council  had  a  solid 
stone  foundation  made  for  it,  as  well  as  a  reenf orced  floor- 
ing and  a  new  shingled  roof.4  Later  other  repairs  were  or- 
dered, but  the  market  continued  so  objectionable  to  many 
residents  that,  in  1774,  a  petition  urging  its  removal  was 
addressed  to  the  common  council.5  No  action,  however, 
was  taken,  and  the  market  remained  standing  until  1779.' 
Another  old  market  house  was  located  near  "  Countess 
Key  "  at  the  foot  of  Maiden  Lane.7  It  was  enlarged  in  1736 
by  voluntary  contribution,  and  in  1771  it  was  further  im- 
proved at  public  expense  to  accommodate  a  growing  trade  in 
fish.8  In  time  it  became  known  as  the  "  Fly"  market  and 

1  Kalm,  op.  cit.,  p.  258. 

1  Stokes,  Iconography  of  Manhattan  Island,  1498-1909  (N.  Y.,  1915), 
vol.  i,  plate  2. 

» M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  365-366.  De  Voe,  Market  Book  (N.  Y.,  1862), 
P.  85. 

4  Post-Boy,  June  17,  1754.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  p.  18. 

6  Stevens,  Colonial  Records,  p.  339. 

7  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  354.  8  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  366. 


72          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [27? 

continued  as  such  until  1822,  having  had  a  continuous  exist- 
ence of  131  years.1  Fish  was  also  sold  in  large  quantities 
at  the  "  Coenties  "  market  in  the  Dock  Ward.  This  market 
was  repaired  and  enlarged  so  that  considerable  business  was 
still  being  conducted  there  when  the  Revolution  broke  out.1 
Near  Clark's  Slip,  at  the  foot  of  Wall  Street,  stood  the 
"  Meal "  market,  which  was  one  of  the  two  public  markets 
where  grain  was  sold.  Here  also,  masters  sent  their  slaves 
to  be  hired  out  to  other  inhabitants  of  the  city.3  The  mar- 
ket became  more  important  when,  in  1738,  the  ferry  lessee 
decided  to  use  Clark's  Slip  as  a  landing  for  his  boats.4  To 
accommodate  the  additional  business,  the  market  house  was 
enlarged  through  contributions  by  neighboring  property 
holders.  Additional  improvements  were  made,  by  John 
Marschalk,  who  was  given  permission  to  provide  bins  in  the 
market  for  storing  grain  that  had  been  sold.5  This  was 
quite  a  convenient  change,  for  previously  all  unsold  meal  had 
commonly  been  stored  over  night  in  nearby  houses. 

In  addition  to  these  five  old  structures,  several  new  ones 
were  built  within  the  period  under  review.  In  1738  the 
common  council  permitted  the  inhabitants  of  the  Dock 
and  South  Wards  to  erect  a  market  house  in  the  middle  of 
Broad  Street,  near  the  present  Exchange  Place.6  In  1746 
leave  was  given  for  another  in  Rodman's  Slip,  also  called 
Burling's  Slip,  but  it  proved  unpopular  and  little  further 
mention  is  made  of  it  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Common  Coun- 
cil.7 About  the  same  time,  the  building  of  "Whitehall  Slip" 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  365-366.    De  Voe,  Market  Book,  p.  85. 

*Ibid.,  p.  116.    M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  103,  124,  211.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  85. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  413-414.  5  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  155. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  426-427.  De  Voe  doubts  the  existence  of  a  market 
on  this  site,  p.  253.  But  the  Minutes  of  the  Court  of  Quarter  Ses- 
sions contain  an  order,  under  date  of  May  5,  1746,  to  remove  a. 
market  house  on  Broad  Street,  near  the  watch  house. 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  168.    De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  278. 


273]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  73 

market  at  the  east  end  of  Pearl  Street  near  the  Battery  was 
allowed;  but  four  years  later  the  common  council  ordered 
it  removed.1  More  nearly  permanent  was  the  "  Peck  Slip  " 
market,  the  first  to  be  built  of  brick.2  It  was  erected  in 
1763  by  William  Walton  and  Jacobus  Roosevelt,  and  re- 
mained standing  until  1793. 

We  now  have  occasion  to  revert  to  an  older  market, 
mentioned  above.  This  was  the  Meal  or  Wall  Street  mar- 
ket, which  by  1762  was  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  condition 
despite  the  efforts  of  the  city  fathers.  As  far  back  as  1744 
the  corporation  had  been  indicted  by  a  grand  jury,  one 
count  being  "  the  Dirt  and  Nastiness  under  the  Meal  Mar- 
kett  and  the  Ground  fronting  the  Same."  3  Several  years 
later  a  considerable  amount  of  earth  was  carted  away,  but 
the  market  was  still  reported  as  a  nuisance,  this  time  the 
drain  under  it  being  clogged.  The  Common  Council,  heed- 
ing the  complaint,  ordered  the  drain  to  be  cleaned,  and  later 
went  to  the  expense  of  erecting  a  new  drain  to  carry  off  the 
filth  from  the  market  to  the  East  River.4  However,  the 
inhabitants  living  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Meal  market  pro- 
tested to  the  common  council  that  it  "  greatly  Obstructs 
the  agreeable  prospect  of  the  East  River  which  those  that 
live  in  Wall  Street  would  Otherwise  enjoy,  that  it  Occa- 
sions a  Dirty  Street  Offensive  to  the  Inhabitants  on  each 
side  and  Disagreeable  to  those  that  pass  and  Repass  to  and 
from  the  Coffee  house  a  place  of  Great  Resort."  5  In  ac- 
cordance with  the  wishes  of  these  persons,  the  common 
council  ordered  the  removal  of  the  house  to  the  "Oswego" 
market. 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  167,  293. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  321.    Stevens,  op.  cit.,  p.  339. 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  113-114-  'Ibid.,  pp.  370,  374- 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  283,  287. 


74          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [274 

This  was  originally  known  as  the  "  Broad  Way  "  market, 
for  it  was  situated  in  the  middle  of  that  thoroughfare  near 
the  present  Liberty  Street.1  It  was  erected  in  1738  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  West  Ward  at  their  own  expense,  and  in 
time  the  name  "  Oswego  "  market  was  applied  to  it.2  It 
was  improved  and  enlarged  by  both  the  corporation  and 
private  persons,  so  that  it  came  to  be  156  feet  in  length.8 
At  first  it  was  solely  a  meal  market,  but  after  1741  meat  also 
was  there  offered  for  sale,  supplies  for  this  food  center 
coming  from  the  Out  Ward  and  down  the  North  River  from 
Tappan.4 

The  market  proved  useful  for  over  thirty  years,  but  in 
1 770  its  continuance  was  strongly  opposed  by  many  influen- 
tial persons.  Its  location  in  the  middle  of  the  city's  busiest 
thoroughfare  became  more  and  more  unsuitable,  as  the  popu- 
lation and  traffic  increased.  In  January  1771,  the  market 
was  denounced  in  the  supreme  court  on  the  ground  that  it 
so  obstructed  Broadway  that  passage  was  dangerous.6 
After  receiving  a  copy  of  the  indictment,  the  common 
council  was  at  first  inclined  to  defend  the  market,  and  en- 
deavored to  retain  James  Duane,  as  counsel.  When  he  de- 
clined, Samuel  Jones  was  engaged.6  After  several  months 
of  deliberation,  Jones  gave  the  discouraging  opinion  that  the 
corporation's  case  was  too  weak  to  be  defended  with  any 
hope  of  success,  and  he  urged  the  board  to  remove  the  mar- 
ket.7 Although  following  his  advice  to  the  extent  of  not 

1  De  Voe,  p.  263. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  423-424;  vol.  v,  p.  216. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  259. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  41-42. 

'  Minutes  of  Supreme  Court,  Jan.  17,  1771. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  259-260,  262. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  300. 


275]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  75 

defending  its  case,  the  common  council  refused  to  order 
the  removal  of  the  market  and  left  such  action  to  the  su- 
preme court. 

Not  long  after  the  market  was  taken  down,  residents  in 
the  neighborhood  inaugurated  a  movement  to  erect  a  new 
one,  "  on  the  East  Side  of  the  Broad  way  Street."  *  The 
common  council  gave  its  sanction  and  funds  were  raised, 
partly  through  a  private  lottery.  The  new  building  received 
the  name  of  "  Oswego  "  market.2 

For  a  number  of  years  before  the  dismantling  of  the  old 
Oswego  market,  residents  of  various  districts  throughout 
the  city  had  been  petitioning  the  common  council  for  the 
right  to  erect  market  houses  in  their  respective  localities,  but 
no  action  resulted.  In  1 742  one  John  Thurman  had  sought 
leave  to  build  a  market  house  at  a  slip  which  he  owned,  and 
Peter  Mesier  one  at  Cortlandt  Slip,  but  they  were  both 
thwarted,  probably  through  the  efforts  of  those  interested  in 
the  old  Oswego  market.3  About  twenty  years  later,  persons 
in  the  vicinity  of  Cortlandt  Street  renewed  the  petition  for 
a  market  house,  and  at 'the  same  time  residents  on  lower  Dey 
Street  made  a  similar  request  for  their  neighborhood.4  But 
again  the  Oswego  market  interests  triumphed,  for  both  peti- 
tions were  indefinitely  deferred.  In  the  year  1771  these 
matters  were  repeatedly  brought  before  the  board,  but  in  the 
fall,  by  a  vote  of  seven  to  eight,  it  refused  its  consent  to 
the  erection  of  a  market  on  Thurman's  Slip.5 

However,  the  demolition  of  Oswego  market  made  the 
building  of  a  new  market  house  imperative.  Three  sites 
were  first  suggested  by  citizens,  one  in  the  Fields,  a  second  on 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  348-349,  350-  2  De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  330. 

*  M .  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  56.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  325. 

&Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  261,  312. 


76          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [276 

Dies  Slip,  and  a  third  at  Mesier's  Dock  on  the  North  River.1 
The  common  council  rejected  the  first  location  proposed, 
although  this  site  was  requested  in  petitions  signed  by 
hundreds  of  inhabitants,  to  which  signatures  were  added 
those  of  no  fewer  than  125  city  cartmen, — a  circumstance 
unique  in  the  annals  of  the  colonial  municipality.  One  may 
only  speculate  as  to  the  identity  of  the  organizer  of  this  re- 
markable demonstration.  Dies  Slip  was  also  eliminated, 
leaving  only  Mesier's  Dock  for  consideration.  Its  general 
location  was  favored,  but  at  the  meeting  certain  lots  owned 
by  the  corporation  to  the  north  of  Dies  Dock  (the  later 
Washington  market,  on  Fulton  and  Vesey  Streets)  were  de- 
termined upon. 

Work  on  the  new  market  house  was  soon  begun.  A  struc- 
ture 1 66  feet  long  by  28  feet  in  breadth  was  planned  by  the 
common  council,  which  appointed  a  committee  to  superin- 
tend its  speedy  completion,  if  possible,  before  the  end  of  the 
year.2  This  undertaking  was  actively  supported  by  private 
contributions.  As  the  amounts  subscribed  were  considerable, 
the  common  council  designated  John.  Stagg  as  official  col- 
lector, and  the  amount  of  £500  was  raised.3  By  November 
1771,  the  building  was  completed,  under  the  name  of  the 
"Bear"  market.4  Scarcely  had  the  new  market  opened  when 
its  business  was  threatened  with  competition.  The  movement 
for  additional  markets  was  strongly  supported  by  the  public, 
and  accordingly  petitions  for  such  buildings  at  Thurman's 
Slip,  in  the  Fields  and  in  Maiden  Lane  were  continually  sub- 
mitted to  the  board.  A  counter  petition  was  also  received, 
signed  by  those  who  had  aided  in  the  building  of  the  Bear 

1  M.  C.  C.t  vol.  vii,  pp.  302-304.    Several  petitions  relating  to  this 
subject  are  in  the  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office.   De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  275. 
JAf.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  306. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  308.    De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  308. 
4  Ibid.,  pp.  311-312.    M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  326. 


277]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  77 

market,  which  document  explained  that  the  present  market 
offered  sufficient  accommodation  and  that  the  erection  of  an- 
other house,  less  than  200  yards  away,  would  prove  very 
injurious  to  the  petitioners,  especially  after  their  large  per- 
sonal expenditures.  With  this  latter  representation  before 
it,  the  common  council,  by  a  majority  of  one,  rejected  the 
proposition  of  John  Thurman.1  Through  the  efforts  of 
Common  Councilman  Abraham  Mesier,  the  board  later 
reversed  its  own  decision,  and  in  the  following  year  voted 
to  accept  John  Thurman's  house,  which  soon  became  known 
as  the  "  Crown  "  market.2 

The  public  markets  were  leased  to  private  individuals,  as 
were  municipal  ferries  and  docks.  The  terms  of  leasing 
were  arranged  by  a  standing  committee  of  the  board.  At 
first  each  stall  was  leased  separately,  and  no  person  was  al- 
lowed to  secure  more  than  two  in  any  one  market.  But  in 
1741  a  decided  change  in  the  method  of  leasing  took  place. 
After  that  year  the  common  council  resolved  to  lease  an- 
nually all  its  market  properties  to  that  individual  who  bid 
highest  at  the  public  auction.3  The  markets  were  leased  the 
first  year  to  Adolph  Brass,  who  sublet  the  stalls  therein  to 
others. 

Several  of  these  lessees,  notably  Adolph  Brass  and  Alex- 
ander Whyte,  were  very  irregular  in  the  payment  of  rent, 
and,  in  the  case  of  the  latter,  suit  was  successfully  brought 
for  recovery.4  Markets  and  docks  were  closely  associated, 
as  meat  and  produce  which  was  unloaded  at  the  docks  al- 
ways passed  directly  to  the  markets  nearby.  It  was  there- 
fore quite  profitable  for  the  lessees  of  the  docks  to  secure 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  331-332. 
1  Ibid.,  pp.  350-351-    De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  328. 
8  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  45-46. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  74-75,  139,  180.    Minutes  of  Supreme  Court,  Jan. 
20,  1770. 


78          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [278 

control  of  the  markets  also,  and  we  find  them  usually  seizing 
this  opportunity.1 

We  have  already  remarked  how  characteristic  paternalism 
was  of  all  governmental  activities  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  market  regulations  of  the  common  council  well  illus- 
trate this.  As  the  purpose  of  the  whole  market  system 
was  primarily  to  bring  housekeepers  and  farmers  in  direct 
contact  with  one  another  and  eliminate,  thereby,  the  middle- 
man, considerable  regulation  was  necessary.  In  the  first 
place,  hucksters  or  retailers  were  not  permitted  to  make  any 
purchases  at  all  in  the  markets  until  the  afternoon,  so  as  to 
give  first  choice  of  products  in  the  morning  to  the  house- 
wives.2 Another  ordinance  prohibited  the  buying  of  pro- 
visions from  country  people,  before  they  reached  the  mar- 
kets. This  restriction  was  often  evaded,  especially  when 
provisions  were  dear,  for  inhabitants  met  the  farmers  at  the 
ferryboat  landings  to  purchase  food.  It  was,  naturally,  of 
advantage  to  boatmen  to  sell  at  the  docks,  for,  aside  from 
making  better  bargains,  they  were  spared  the  extra  expense 
of  carting  their  goods  to  the  market.  Also  the  quality  of  the 
meat  sold  at  the  markets  was  guarded  by  the  common  coun- 
cil, which  in  1731  ordained  that  "no  unholsome  or  Stale 
Victualls,  No  Blown  Meat  or  Leprous  Swine"  be  sold  within 
the  city  on  penalty  of  a  fine  of  forty  shillings.3  This  by-law 
was  frequently  invoked  against  butchers ;  for  example,  "  nine 
quarters  of  carrion  Lamb,  was  by  authority,  seized,  in  the 
Fly  Market  of  this  city,  and  according  to  Law,  burnt,  near 
the  Ferry  stairs."  Short  weight  was  another  evil  practice 
against  which  the  common  council  enacted  several  ordi- 
nances. It  ordered  that  all  weights  and  measures  for  use  in 
the  markets  be  first  examined  and  then  sealed.5 

1M.  C.  C.,  op.  cit.  passim.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  108-109. 

*Ibid.,  p.  109.  4  Post-Boy,  May  9,  1757. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  no. 


279]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  79 

Notwithstanding  the  market  system,  the  prices  of  food- 
stuffs rose  steadily,  as  is  shown  by  the  quotations  found  in 
the  newspapers  of  the  day.  The  high  cost  of  living  natur- 
ally occasioned  many  complaints  and  consequent  demands 
for  higher  wages  and  salaries.  Lieutenant  Governor  Golden 
in  a  letter  dated  November  10,  1764,  states  that  an  income 
"  which  would  have  enabled  a  Family  to  live  with  some  dis- 
tinction thirty  or  forty  years  since,  is  now  not  sufficient  for 
the  subsistence  of  a  Family  of  midling  Rank."  1 

There  were  several  causes,  both  transitory  and  permanent, 
for  the  rise  of  prices.  Temporary  advances  in  the  cost  of 
food  were  often  caused  by  inclement  weather  which  pre- 
vented small  boats  from  landing  in  safety.  Floating  ice  at 
times  held  back  food-laden  ships  bound  for  the  city.2  Re- 
ports of  yellow  fever  or  smallpox  in  New  York  also  deterred 
many  of  the  country  people  from  coming  to  market.  Thus, 
in  1731,  according  to  one  account,  "  the  Markets  begin  to 
grow  very  thin;  the  Small-Pox  raging  violently  in  Town, 
which  in  a  great  measure  hinders  the  Country  People  from 
supplying  this  Place  with  Provisions."  3  In  order  to  meet 
such  a  difficulty,  the  magistrates  would  exert  every  effort  to 
contradict  or  minimize  alarming  news,  on  one  occasion  even 
going  so  far  as  to  order  the  newspapers  to  print  the  follow- 
ing statement :  "  Whereas  some  Evil  disposed  Persons  for 
their  own  private  Lucre  and  gain,  have  Industriously  Spread 
A  Report  about  the  Country  that  the  Small-Pox  prevails 
within  this  City,  whereby  to  deter  the  Country  People  from 
Coming  to  Markett  .  .  .  These  are  therefore  to  Certifie  and 
declare  that  the  Said  Report  is  false  and  Groundless." 

The  heavy  export  of  foodstuffs  also  tended  to  raise  prices 

1  Colden  Letter  Book,  vol.  i,  p.  398. 
J  Smith,  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  vol.  ii,  p.  69. 
3  Boston  News-Letter,  Sept.  2,  1731. 
*  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  56-57. 


go          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [2go 

to  a  high  level  and  to  keep  them  there.  For  this  reason,  a 
committee  of  the  common  council,  in  1748,  petitioned 
Governor  Clinton  to  place  an  embargo  on  flour,  bread,  grain 
and  butter.  Part  of  the  address  is  as  follows :  "As  the  Great 
and  Unusual  Exportation  of  the  produce  of  our  Country  to 
foreign  Markets  in  the  West  Indies  has  Occasioned  so  great 
a  scarcity  of  provisions  at  this  time  ...  so  in  consequence 
therof  they  are  become  most  Excessive  Dear  to  the  Very 
great  Oppression  and  Loss  of  all  Degrees  of  people  but 
more  Especially  to  the  industrious  and  Laborious  poor 
amongst  us."  x 

There  were  also  complaints  about  monopolies  as  the  cause 
of  rising  prices.  Beef  which  sold  for  only  four  pence  per 
pound  in  the  neighboring  districts  brought  in  the  city  as 
high  as  seven  and  eight  pence  per  pound.  According  to 
one  statement  this  was  due  to  the  efforts  of  "  one  of  the 
most  impudent  combinations  that  was  ever  suffered  among 
a  free  and  thinking  people."  2  To  check  the  aggression  of 
this  colonial  food  trust,  in  1763  a  large,  influential  body  of 
citizens  urged  the  common  council  to  fix  by  an  assize  the 
price  of  food  in  the  markets.8  Though  the  board  had  regu- 
lated the  price  of  bread,  it  had  hitherto  carefully  refrained 
from  taking  any  such  action  regarding  meat  and  other  pro- 
visions. In  the  case  of  bread,  the  right  of  the  municipality 
was  unquestioned,  for  the  bakers,  who  alone  were  concerned, 
were  residents  within  the  city.  As  to  meat  and  provisions, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  was  considerable  doubt  because  in- 
habitants of  neighboring  counties  would  thus  be  affected  by  a 
municipal  ordinance.  However,  in  1763,  the  common 
council  formally  stated  that  it  was  "  fully  authorized  to 
Regulate  and  Assize  the  prices  of  all  kinds  of  Provisions 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  242-244.  *  De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  145. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  336. 


28 1  ]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  gl 

set  to  Sale  in  this  City  for  the  Consumption  of  its  Inhabi- 
tants," and  at  once  passed  an  ordinance  making  this  right 
effective.1  Then  immediately  followed  a  controversy  in 
which  the  Gazette  roundly  denounced  the  avarice  of  butch- 
ers and  country  people,  while  the  Mercury,  another  repre- 
sentative weekly,  was  inclined  to  defend  them. 

This  ordinance  was  bitterly  opposed  by  the  butchers,  the 
majority  of  whom  refused  to  sell  any  meat  so  long  as  it  was 
enforced,  thus  threatening  the  city's  food  supply.  Two  of 
their  number,  John  Carpenter  and  Jacob  Arden,  were  bold 
enough  to  sell  beef  at  a  price  above  that  set  by  the  ordin- 
ance, the  latter  declaring  "  that  he  would  Sell  his  Beef  for 
four  pence  half  penny  pr  pound  in  Spite  of  all  that  the  wise 
heads  that  made  the  Law  Could  do."  For  this  attitude, 
Arden  was  deprived  of  his  "  freemanship,"  thus  entailing 
the  loss  not  alone  of  the  political  right  to  vote,  but  also  of 
the  industrial  privilege  of  engaging  in  trade  or  business 
within  the  limits  of  the  city. 

More  potent  than  the  opposition  of  the  city  butchers  was 
that  of  the  nearby  farmers  who  supplied  the  markets  with 
meat.  They  soon  brought  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  as- 
sembly to  pass  a  bill  nullifying  the  assize  established  by  the 
municipality.3  After  its  passage  in  the  lower  house  the  bill 
was  sent  to  the  legislative  council.  At  a  hearing  before  this 
body,  the  bill  was  opposed  by  a  committee  of  the  Common 
Council  who  held  that  the  proposed  law  impaired  the  char- 
tered rights  of  the  city  and  caused  its  rejection.4  This  oc- 
curred about  a  year  before  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act. 
Agitation  was  in  the  air,  and  the  country  people  were  un- 
willing to  admit  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  municipal  gov- 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  337-342.     *Ibid.,  pp.  360-361. 

zlbid.,  p.  360.  4/owr.  Legis,  Coun.,  vol.  ii,  p.  153°- 


82          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [282: 

ernment.  They  boldly  proclaimed  that  as  free  Englishmen 
they  had  a  right  to  sell  their  provisions  at  their  own  prices.1 
Accordingly  they  agreed  to  establish  a  storehouse  at  Tarry- 
town,  where  the  inhabitants  of  New  York  might  pur- 
chase provisions,  and  at  the  same  time  planned  to  lay  a 
twenty-shilling  tax  on  the  owner  of  any  vessel  leaving  there 
with  supplies  for  the  city  markets.  This  vigorous  resistance 
brought  results,  and  made  the  Common  Council  feel  that 
the  prices  it  had  fixed  were  too  low ;  so  the  board  removed 
from  the  assize  several  features  which  were  objectionable 
to  the  country  people.2 

We  ask  this  final  question  concerning  the  markets :  Was 
their  operation  in  the  city  of  New  York  a  success?  What- 
ever may  have  been  the  benefits  derived  from  the  markets  in 
the  early  years,  they  did  not  prove  satisfactory  toward  the 
close  of  the  colonial  period.  The  common  council,  in  the 
interests  of  the  older  markets,  continually  blocked  attempts, 
to  establish  new  ones  in  the  northern  part  of  the  city.  Thus 
the  increase  in  their  number  did  not  keep  pace  with  the 
growing  population,  and,  as  we  saw,  not  until  after  1740 
were  the  much-needed  markets  erected.  Popular  dissatis- 
faction with  inadequate  accommodations  and  the  poor 
quality  of  food  offered  for  sale,  together  with  the  high 
prices,  caused  considerable  discontent  in  the  later  period. 

From  the  foregoing  review,  it  is  evident  that  the  com- 
mon council,  in  shaping  its  economic  legislation,  had  always, 
to  consider  the  attitude  of  neighboring  counties.  We  have 
seen  that  on  one  occasion  the  clamor  from  these  outside 
districts  nearly  persuaded  the  provincial  legislature  to  nul- 
lify a  municipal  ordinance  on  market  prices.  Other  by- 
laws of  the  common  council,  especially  those  on  hay  and 

1  De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  147.    Gazette,  Sept.  19,  1763. 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  362. 


283]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  83 

wood,  were  intended  to  protect  local  inhabitants  from  the 
sharp  practices  of  the  country  people.  These  regulations 
caused  ill-feeling  between  the  city  and  the  surrounding  coun- 
ties of  Queens,  Kings,  Richmond,  and  Westchester. 

To  enforce  proper  inspection,  hay,  according  to  one  or- 
dinance, could  be  unloaded  only  at  designated  places.1  For 
a  long  time,  hay  had  been  sold  by  the  load  or  by  the  half 
load,  but  this  method  was  found  by  experience  to  be  very 
uncertain,  and  controversies  ensued  between  rural  boatmen 
and  city  cartmen.  In  the  interest  of  its  constituency,  the 
common  council  passed  an  ordinance  providing  for  a  hun- 
dred-weight measure,  to  be  determined  by  "  weighing  ma- 
chines," set  up  in  various  parts  of  the  city.2  They  were 
operated  by  persons  whom  the  common  council  appointed 
as  inspectors,  and  the  work  of  weighing  proved  so  profitable 
that  one  alderman  obtained  permission  to  erect  a  "  Hay 
Machine  "  near  the  Oswego  market.3  The  municipal  scales 
proved  very  expensive  in  construction ;  one  of  them,  for  ex- 
ample, which  cost  £79,  proved  a  complete  failure.4  For  a 
number  of  years  no  further  action  was  taken  by  the  common 
council,  despite  many  complaints  that  hay,  improperly  cured 
and  generally  poor,  was  offered  for  sale.  Twice  a  commit- 
tee of  the  board  was  appointed  to  devise  means  of  settling 
this  difficulty,  but  not  until  1773  was  a  comprehensive  by- 
law passed.5  It  placed  responsibility  for  the  quality  of  the 
hay  upon  the  city  cartmen,  who  were  ordered,  on  penalty  of 
a  fine  of  ten  shillings  for  every  load,  to  make  sure  that  it 
was  sufficiently  dried.  Disputes  arising  under  this  ordin- 
ance were  settled  by  a  novel  method  of  arbitration.  An  in- 
habitant who  believed  he  was  being  defrauded  could  apply 
to  one  of  the  magistrates  for  an  examination  of  the  hay  by 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  119.  *Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  298-300. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  423,  427.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  322.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  430-432. 


84          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [284 

a  committee  of  three,  to  be  appointed  by  the  owner,  the 
purchaser  or  an  inspector,  and  the  magistrate,  respectively. 
The  alderman  based  his  judgment  on  the  report  of  these 
three  men,  and  placed  costs  of  examination  upon  the  loser. 
The  prospective  buyer,  as  an  inhabitant  of  the  city,  naturally 
had,  in  such  cases,  the  advantage  of  being  usually  favored 
by  the  alderman,  who  would  not  be  likely  to  incur  the  dis- 
pleasure of  his  constituents.  The  operation  of  this  statute 
did  not  tend  to  promote  good  feeling  between  the  city  and 
its  neighbors. 

Regulations  on  the  sale  of  cordwood  in  the  city  caused  an 
open  clash  with  Richmond  County,  whence  this  commodity 
was  mainly  obtained.  A  scarcity  of  wood  at  times  occurred, 
and  in  1759  prices  rose  to  the  high  level  of  £3  IDS  per  cord.1 
Besides,  many  residents  claimed  that  the  wood  on  sale  was 
of  short  measure,  and  the  common  council  thereupon 
passed  an  ordinance  stating  in  its  preamble  that  "  frequent 
Abuses  have  been  Committed,  and  are  likely  to  Continue, 
in  the  sale  of  firewood  for  want  of  a  more  Certain  method 
of  Admeasurement."  2  It  was  therefore  ordered  that  no 
firewood  brought  to  the  city  in  boats  should  be  landed  un- 
til sold,  thus  permitting  proper  measurement  as  it  left  the 
vessel.  It  was  to  be  distributed  in  cords  eight  by  four  feet 
and  measured  by  inspectors  who  were  engaged  for  this  work 
by  the  common  council  at  a  compensation  of  four  coppers 
per  cord.  The  payment  of  this  fee  was  divided  between 
buyer  and  seller.  The  wood  sellers  of  Richmond  naturally 
were  aroused  by  this  ordinance  and  sought  to  nullify  it. 
Through  their  representatives  in  the  assembly,  a  bill  was  in- 
troduced regulating  the  sale  of  firewood  brought  into  New 
York.  Sharp  debate  followed  in  which  the  city  was  as- 
sailed as  a  "  dirty  Corporation/'  while  in  reply  its  repre- 

1  De  Voe,  op.  cit.,  p.  136.  *  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  320-321. 


285]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  85 

sentatives  defended  the  municipal  ordinance  on  wood  as 
being  the  only  way  of  compelling  grasping  Staten  Island 
dealers  to  give  full  measure  to  the  city's  poor.1  The  bill 
passed  the  lower  house,  over  the  protests  of  the  city's  as- 
semblymen, but  through  the  efforts  of  the  recorder,  who 
pointed  out  that  the  charter  rights  of  the  corporation  were 
being  abridged,  the  governor's  council  defeated  the  measure.2 
This  chapter,  dealing  with  the  economic  legislation  of 
the  city,  began  with  a  reference  to  mercantilism.  It  has 
been  shown  that  this  policy,  the  keynote  of  which  was  close 
governmental  supervision,  pervaded  the  ordinances  of  the 
common  council  on  commerce  and  local  trade.  But  in  no 
field  did  the  corporation  exercise  more  control  than  in  the 
granting  of  the  "  freedom  "  of  the  city.  To-day  this  is 
merely  a  complimentary  privilege  bestowed  upon  a  distin- 
guished visitor  by  a  municipality  as  a  token  of  honor.  In 
former  times,  however,  this  grant  really  meant  a  very 
definite  thing;  for  it  made  the  recipient  a  "  freeman"  of 
the  city  or,  more  specifically,  a  member  of  the  municipal 
corporation,  known  in  this  case  as  the  "  Commonalty  of  the 
City  of  New  York."  3  As  such  he  possessed  certain  poli- 
tical and  industrial  privileges.  His  political  rights  em- 
powered him  to  vote  for  elective  officers.  His  industrial 
benefits  are  seen  from  the  following  regulation,  that  no  one 
was  to  "  Keep  shop,  or  sell  or  Expose  to  Sale  any  Goods 
or  Wares  by  Retail,  or  Exercise  any  Handy  Craft  Trade  or 
Occupation,  but  such  as  are  Freemen."  4  One  became  a 
freeman  by  applying  to  the  common  council,  and,  after 
being  admitted,  by  paying  a  fee,  ranging  from  £3  for  a  mer- 

1  Broadside  addressed  to  "  The  Representatives  in  General  Assembly," 
printed  by  John  Holt,  Feb.  1774,  in  Library  of  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 
J  M .  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  136.    Min.  Leg.  Coun.,  vol.  ii,  p.  1580. 
3  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  576. 
*  Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  96.   Kent,  Charter  of  the  City  of  New  York,  p.  154. 


86          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [286 

chant  or  shopkeeper  to  twenty  shillings  for  a  manual  worker. 
The  candidate  then  took  an  oath  under  the  injunction, 
"  Obeysant  and  Obedient  Shall  ye  be  to  the  Mayor  and 
Ministers  of  this  City,"  and  further  swore  to  accept  sum- 
mons, to  take  turn  at  the  watch,  to  pay  his  taxes,  and  to 
warn  the  mayor  of  any  "  Gatherings  Conventicles  or  Con- 
spiracies made  against  the  Kings  Peace."  x 

At  times,  the  freedom  was  bestowed  gratuitously  upon  a 
prominent  visitor  or  upon  some  one  who  had  performed  an 
important  public  service.  A  new  governor  on  arrival  was 
usually  thus  complimented  by  the  corporation.  Captain  Sir 
Peter  Warren,  for  exploits  against  the  French,  received  the 
freedom  of  the  city,  as  well  as  the  generals,  Shirley,  Monck- 
ton  and  Gage,2  Andrew  Hamilton,  the  Philadelphia  advo- 
cate, who  successfully  defended  John  Peter  Zenger  against 
the  libel  charges  preferred  by  Governor  Cosby,  was  similarly 
complimented.3  Once  three  sailors  attached  to  a  vessel 
moored  in  the  harbor,  received  the  freedom  of  the  city 
for  conspicuous  gallantry  in  helping  to  extinguish  a  danger- 
ous fire.  However,  only  a  small  number  of  complimentary 
"  freedoms  "  were  granted,  the  great  majority  being  com- 
pulsory. Regardless  of  rank,  occupation  or  sex,  indepen- 
dent workers  of  the  city  were  required  to  apply  for  a 
"  freedom."  The  trading  class,  such  as  merchants,  shop- 
keepers, and  retail  dealers,  the  artisans  including  coopers, 
carpenters  and  tanners,  as  well  as  midwives,  doctors  and 
teachers,  all  were  obliged  to  become  freemen  or  f reewomen.* 

The  activities  of  certain  classes  of  freemen  were  often 
subject  to  strict  regulation  by  the  common  council.  This 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  121,  as  of  the  year  1731. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  44;  vol.  v,  pp.  229-230;  vol.  vi,  pp.  271,  446. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  277-278. 

4  Burghers  of  New  Amsterdam  and  the  Freemen  of  New  York,  op.  cit., 
passim. 


287]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  87 

was  illustrated  above  in  the  ordinances  determining  prices  to 
be  charged  by  the  city  bakers  and  butchers.  Equally  specific 
were  municipal  by-laws  regarding  trucking  business  within 
the  city.  A  considerable  number  of  persons  gained  their 
livelihood  from  this  occupation,  since  many  carts  were 
needed  in  moving  merchandise  to  warehouses,  flour  and 
provisions  to  ships,  and  foodstuffs  to  market.  In  fact,  the 
city  faced  no  inconsiderable  traffic  problem  early  in  its  his- 
tory; reckless  driving  not  being  solely  a  modern  evil  in  the 
city,  as  is  evident  from  the  newspapers  of  the  colonial  days. 

Similar  to  modern  laws  was  the  old  regulation  ordaining 
that  "  Every  Carman  that  driveth  A  Cart  for  Hire  or  Wages 
within  this  City  Shall  have  the  Number  of  his  Licence  fairly 
painted  upon  each  side  of  his  Cart  with  Red  Paint,  easily  to 
be  seen  on  the  after  part  of  the  shaft."  1  Furthermore  it 
was  ruled  that  no  driver  should  refuse  to  let  his  horse  and 
cart  to  any  person  who  required  them,  and  should  charge 
only  those  rates  prescribed  by  the  common  council.  In 
addition,  most  of  the  ordinances,  detailed  in  the  first  volume 
of  this  series,  were  continued  in  force. 

Manufacturing  played  but  an  unimportant  part  in  the 
business  activities  of  the  city,  as  is  evident  from  the  small 
number  of  freemen  engaged  in  such  occupation.  However, 
a  few  manufacturing  plants  did  exist  within  the  city  limits. 
In  1730  a  smelting  furnace  for  the  reduction  of  iron  ore, 
one  of  the  first  in  the  United  States,  was  built  near  the 
corner  of  the  present  Reade  and  Center  Streets.2  At  about 
the  same  time  the  Bayards  erected  a  large  building  near  the 
City  Hall  for  the  refining  of  sugar,  but  later  the  structure 
was  used  as  a  tobacco  factory.8  Glass  was  also  worked  on 
a  small  scale.  Several  mills  for  the  making  of  nails  were, 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  91. 

"Wilson,  Memorial  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 

*  Historic  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  95. 


88          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [288 

erected,  but  later  suppressed  by  the  home  government.1 
Owing  to  this  hostile  attitude  of  Great  Britain  toward  colo- 
nial manufactures,  there  were  but  few  metal  workers  in  the 
city,  with  the  exception  of  the  freemen  who  were  regis- 
tered as  goldsmiths  or  brass  founders;  consequently  there 
is  scarcely  any  mention  of  them  in  common  council  ordi- 
nances. 

The  making  of  wearing  apparel  was  developing  slowly 
during  the  later  colonial  period.  Hats  were  made  exten- 
sively, as  is  seen  from  the  number  of  freemen  enrolled  as 
feltmakers.2  The  growing  interest  in  the  manufacture  of 
clothing  is  apparent  in  a  report  of  Governor  Sir  Henry 
Moore  to  the  home  government.3 

Leather  making  was  quite  an  important  occupation  in  the 
city.  In  time  the  location  of  the  tanneries  was  shifted  north- 
ward. At  first  they  were  situated  in  the  district  known  as 
Beekman's  Swamp.  But  in  1744  they  were  not  allowed 
any  longer  below  Fresh  Water  Pond,  all  the  old  tanpits  be- 
ing ordered  filled.  This  step  was  taken  after  a  yellow-fever 
epidemic,  which  "  Infectious  Distemper,"  it  was  believed, 
had  been  caused  by  the  presence  of  the  "  Pitts  of  Tanners 
Skinners  Leather  Dressers  Curriers  and  Glovers  within  or 
too  near  the  Populous  and  Most  Inhabited  part  of  this 
City."  4  Here  we  have  an  early  instance  of  the  exercise  of 
the  city's  police  power  in  the  interest  of  public  health,  for 
the  entire  tanning  industry  was  thus  moved  to  the  north  of 
Fresh  Water  Pond  in  the  Out  Ward.  Though  this  change 
was  forced  upon  the  tanners,  it  was  not  without  its  miti- 
gating circumstances.  The  new  location  was  quite  favor- 
able, for  tanners  were  given  full  privilege  to  dig  pits  and 
to  draw  water  from  the  pond.5 

1  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  604-605. 

3  Freemen  of  New-York,  op.  cit.,  passim.  8  Doc.  Hist.,  vol.  i,  p. 

*M.  C.  C.t  vol.  v,  p.  119.  *Ibid.,  p.  161. 


289]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  89 

Several  brickyards  were  conducted  to  meet  the  needs  of 
a  growing  community.  As  this  work  required  considerable 
fuel,  local  brickmakers,  having  establishments  in  the  lower 
part  of  the  city,  found  it  difficult  to  secure  sufficient  supply. 
For  a  time  they  felled  trees  in  the  Commons,  but  the  com- 
mon council  generally  prohibited  this  practice.1  Though 
several  favored  individuals  were  privileged  by  the  board  to 
dig  clay  pits  and  set  up  brick  kilns  on  the  Commons,  at 
rentals  of  from  ten  to  twenty  shillings,  less  fortunate  per- 
sons were  compelled  to  lease  ground  further  north.2 

One  manufacturing  industry  not  under  the  ban  of  the 
home  government  was  shipbuilding,  which  became  so  ex- 
tensive as  to  excite  comment  from  visitors  to  the  city.  It 
gave  employment  to  many  hands  and  it  accounts  for  the 
numerous  freemen  registered  in  the  city  records  as  "  ship 
carpenters  "  and  "  ropemakers." 

The  several  groups  of  freemen  naturally  exerted  pressure 
upon  the  common  council  whenever  their  interests  were 
concerned.  As  one  would  expect,  this  power  varied  with 
the  different  economic  classes,  for  the  artisans  or  "  me- 
chanics," though  numerically  strong,  were  far  less  influen- 
tial than  the  merchants.  We  find  that  the  response  of  the 
governing  bodies  to  petitions  depended  to  an  extent  upon 
this  fact :  whether  or  not  these  came  from  persons  of  conse- 
quence. For  a  number  of  years,  city  freemen  engaged  in 
the  building  trades,  carpenters  and  bricklayers  in  particular, 
found  active  competitors  in  persons  coming  from  the  sur- 
rounding country,  especially  New  Jersey.  These  were  said 
to  stay  out  of  the  city  until  after  the  collection  of  taxes.  As 
a  result  local  mechanics,  who  were  under  the  expense  of 
paying  municipal  taxes,  complained  that  non-residents  were 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  iu-112.         2Ibid.,  p.  484;  vol.  v,  pp.  22,  325. 


90  .       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [290 

"  offering  the  Service  of  themselves,  Journeymen  and  Ser- 
vants, at  Sundry  places,  and  as  many  Sundry  times  at  a 
Rate  of  20  or  30  Pounds  per  Job  or  distinct  article  of  Work- 
manship less  than  has  been  agreed  upon  by  us."  1  Such  out- 
siders did  not  even  patronize  local  tradesmen,  "  not  so  much 
as  buying  a  pair  of  Shoes  in  the  City  of  New  York,  but  fre- 
quently bringing  Nails  and  other  Materials  for  Building  & 
along  with  them  from  the  Jerseys  and  other  provinces."  To 
check  such  ruinous  practices,  a  petition  with  about  one  hun- 
dred signatures  was  presented  to  Governor  Clinton,  but  it 
encountered  rather  a  cold  reception.  He  turned  the  matter 
over  to  his  councillors,  one  of  whom,  Daniel  Horsmanden, 
also  holding  the  office  of  city  recorder,  carefully  analyzed  it. 
He  sought  to  discredit  the  list  of  signers,  claiming  that  there 
were  several  forged  names  and  adding  that  "  the  Bulk  of  the 
persons  who  may  be  supposed  to  have  subscribed  their  Names 
are  obscure  persons  altogether  unknown  to  us  in  person  and 
name  excepting  a  very  few  of  them."  Finally  Horsmanden, 
who  was  always  more  considerate  when  matters  involving 
the  interests  of  the  local  merchant  aristocracy  were  at  issue, 
dismissed  the  whole  subject  by  recommending  that  the  peti- 
tioners apply  to  the  mayor's  court. 

After  similar  rebuffs  these  artisans  came  to  understand 
fully  the  value  of  concerted  action,  and,  as  early  as  1767, 
the  "  Friendly  Society  of  Tradesmen,  House  Carpenters  " 
was  organized.2  The  age  limits  of  members  of  this  body 
were  twenty-one  and  forty.  Stated  monthly  meetings  were 
held,  at  which  any  disorderly  or  drunken  persons  were 
heavily  fined;  in  fact  it  appears  that  one  of  the  purposes 
of  the  organization,  in  addition  to  regulating  business, 

1  Manuscript  in  the  papers  of  Daniel  Horsmanden,  in  Library  of 
N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 

1  Broadside  entitled  "Articles  and  Regulations  of  the  Friendly  Society 
of  Tradesmen,  House  Carpenters,"  dated,  March  10,  1767,  in  N.  Y. 
Public  Library. 


2gi]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  91 

was  to  put  a  check  on  inebriety.  Benefit  features  were  also 
included  in  the  constitution,  for  sick  members  received  fixed 
sums  every  week  they  were  unable  to  work.  The  lodge  also 
met  the  expenses  of  a  brother's  funeral,  which  all  were  ex- 
pected to  attend. 

Thus  organized,  these  workers  were  better  able  to  force 
their  demands  upon  the  government.  In  1769  they  called 
the  attention  of  the  common  council  to  the  fact  that  "  a 
Considerable  Number  of  Country  Carpenters  have  for  Some 
years  past  Come  into  this  City  in  the  Summer  Season  and 
followed  their  Trade  and  in  the  fall  Return  again  to  their 
familys  without  paying  any  Taxes  or  assessments."  *  On 
this  occasion  action  was  apparently  taken  which  differed 
much  from  that  referred  to  above,  for  a  committee  of  the 
board  was  immediately  appointed  and  ordered  to  report 
"  with  all  Convenient  Speed."  Other  illustrations  of  the 
power  of  the  carpenters  are  not  lacking.  Their  organized 
opposition  was  partly  instrumental  in  suspending  the  oper- 
ation of  an  act  concerning  the  roofing  of  houses  in  the  city.2 

But  even  more  efficiently  organized  were  the  local  mer- 
chants, and  they  consequently  exercised  great  influence  over 
the  common  council.  In  later  years  this  was  wielded  mainly 
through  the  chamber  of  commerce,  founded  in  April  1768.* 
The  meeting  place  of  this  body  was  the  "  Merchant's  Ex- 
change," at  the  lower  end  of  Broad  Street.  This  building, 
originally  intended  as  a  place  for  such  gatherings,  was 
erected  in  1752  by  subscriptions  from  the  inhabitants  and 
by  appropriations  from  the  corporation.4  The  work  of  con- 
struction was  conducted  by  the  common  council,  which 
made  up  all  specifications.5  Upon  completion,  the  building 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  177. 

1  Vide  infra,  chapter  on  "  Fire  Protection." 

*  Stevens,  Colonial  Records,  pp.  3-4. 

4  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  367-368,  375-  *Ibid.,  pp.  380-381. 


92          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [292 

was  rented  to  several  persons  successively  until,  in  1769, 
the  corporation  granted  the  use  of  the  Exchange  to  the 
chamber  of  commerce,  at  an  annual  rental  of  £20. 1 

The  express  purpose  of  the  chamber  of  commerce  was  the 
"  adjusting  disputes  relative  to  trade  and  navigation  and  pro- 
curing such  laws  and  regulations  as  may  be  found  necessary 
for  the  benefit  of  trade  in  general."  2  The  latter  object  was 
fully  attained,  for  upon  several  occasions  the  organization 
directly  requested  the  common  council  to  pass  certain  regu- 
lations, and  in  this  it  was  uniformly  successful.  When  such 
favors  were  desired,  a  committee  of  the  chamber  usually  ap- 
proached the  mayor  and  laid  the  proposed  ordinance  before 
him.  At  one  time  there  was  an  urgent  request  from  the 
chamber  of  commerce  for  a  more  effective  ordinance  on  the 
cutting  of  lumber ;  so  a  committee  communicated  this  desire 
to  the  mayor.3  Not  long  thereafter  he  submitted  a  draft  of 
such  ordinance  to  the  chamber  of  commerce,  which,  after 
careful  consideration,  gave  its  approval,  and  it  was  soon 
incorporated  in  an  ordinance  by  the  common  council.4 

Local  export  merchants  were  always  solicitous  for  a 
proper  supervision  of  the  packing  of  meat;  for  it  was  to 
their  interest  to  supply  products  of  high  quality  for  foreign 
markets.  We  have  seen  above  that  the  common  council 
made  ample  provision  in  this  respect,  and  these  municipal 
regulations  were  maintained  in  full  force,  due  to  constant 
pressure  of  the  merchants  upon  the  board.  On  several 
occasions  amendments  to  the  rules  on  the  packing  of  beef 
and  pork  were  recommended  to  the  mayor,  who  in  turn  sub- 
mitted the  suggestions  of  the  chamber  of  commerce  to  the 
common  council.8  This  body  did  not  go  through  the  for- 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  3,  47,  78;  vol.  vii,  p.  149. 

1  Stevens,  o/>.  cit.,  p.  3.  •  Ibid.,  p.  59. 

4 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  197,  226.  'Stevens,  op.  cit.,  pp.  63,  70-71. 


293]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  93 

mality  of  incorporating  the  proposals  in  an  ordinance,  but 
it  appears  that  thereafter  they  were  followed  by  the  public 
inspectors  of  meat.1 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  has  been  to  sketch  briefly  the 
business  activities  in  colonial  New  York  and  to  indicate  the 
tendencies  in  the  legislation  of  the  common  council  in  the 
several  fields.  It  was  noted  that,  in  regulating  its  com- 
merce, in  inspecting  the  commodities  for  exportation  or  for 
home  consumption,  in  solving  its  excise  problem,  in  con- 
trolling its  public  markets,  and  in  granting  industrial  privi- 
leges to  its  freemen,  the  corporation  acted  in  harmony  with 
the  principles  of  paternalism.  It  was  also  observed  that  the 
economic  interests  of  the  city  of  New  York  lay  mainly  in 
commerce,  so  that  trade,  not  land  or  manufactures,  formed 
the  basis  of  its  wealth.  Not  alone  were  wholesale  mer- 
chants, traders,  and  retail  shopkeepers  dependent  upon  this 
pursuit  for  their  livelihood,  but  also  it  gave  occupation  to 
many  other  inhabitants.  The  inspectors  of  commodities, 
cartmen  who  handled  merchandise,  distillers  of  liquors,  mil- 
lers, bakers  supplying  flour  and  bread  for  the  export  trade, 
and  coopers  making  casks  for  meat  packing — all  were  more 
or  less  concerned  in  the  welfare  of  the  city's  commerce. 
This  accounts  for  the  extensive  influence  of  the  merchants 
over  the  common  council  and  the  frequent  shaping  of  muni- 
cipal regulations  to  suit  their  wishes.  In  contrast  to  this 
economic  group  were  the  artisans,  who  were  weak  politically 
despite  their  strength  in  numbers.  Though  these  merchants 
and  mechanics  had  interests  in  common,  it  was  seen  in  the 
previous  chapter  that  certain  factors,  at  times,  operated  to 
bring  about  a  clash  between  them. 

In  addition  to  this  division  between  merchants  and 
artisans  within  the  municipality,  as  we  saw,  there  existed 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  209-210. 


94          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [294 

a  conflict  of  interests  between  the  city  as  a  consumer  and 
the  surrounding  counties  as  producers.  It  was  shown  above, 
that  the  city,  dependent  as  it  was  upon  the  outside  region 
for  its  food  supply,  sought  to  regulate  its  sale,  with  a  view 
to  benefit  its  own  residents.  Dissatisfaction  with  the  ordin- 
ances of  the  common  council  frequently  resulted,  and  the 
country  people  had  recourse  to  the  assembly,  where  the 
votes  of  the  rural  interests  were  usually  sufficient  to  over- 
whelm any  opposition  from  the  representatives  of  the  city. 
Fortunately  for  the  municipality,  the  upper  house  proved 
friendly  and  blocked  hostile  legislation.  Citing  the  in- 
stances of  the  failure  of  assembly  bills  to  regulate  the  city 
markets  and  the  sale  of  firewood,  one  is  led  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  city  was  successful  in  resisting  the  attacks  of  the 
surrounding  counties  against  the  municipal  laws  dealing 
with  certain  business  activities. 

Finally,  there  persisted  a  more  extended  conflict,  one  be- 
tween the  colony  as  a  whole  and  the  home  government. 
The  latter  exercised  a  significant  jurisdiction  over  the  eco- 
nomic interests  of  the  city,  especially  over  the  manufactures. 
True  to  the  mercantilist  principle  that  colonies  existed  only 
for  the  benefit  of  the  mother  country,  and  that  all  manufac- 
tures should  be  a  monopoly  of  the  realm  of  England,  every 
effort  was  made  to  suppress  them.  The  study  of  manufac- 
tures in  the  city  within  the  period  under  review  discloses  a 
growing  interest  in  this  field,  notwithstanding  the  restrictive 
acts  of  the  British  government.  This  hostility  caused  wide- 
spread dissatisfaction  in  New  York,  and  the  ill  feeling  was 
further  intensified  as  the  profits  in  the  export  trade  declined 
with  the 'growth  of  competition  from  New  England  and 
Pennsylvania  in  foreign  markets.  The  crowding  of  capital 
in  commerce  and  the  consequent  decreasing  returns  were 
fully  appreciated  by  Lieutenant  Governor  Clarke,  who,  in 
1736,  wrote  as  follows :  "  The  Markets  for  your  Flour  (the 


295]  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY  95 

present  staple  of  the  Province)  are  already  so  much  over- 
done, by  the  great  Importations  that  are  made  to  them, 
from  this  and  other  Northern  Colonies,  that  unless  some 
Manufactures  be  set  on  Foot,  that  are  wanted  in  Great- 
Britain,  or  do  not  interfere  with  theirs,  there  will  be  no 
Way  to  imploy  the  People  to  any  Advantage."  x  These 
views  were  not  shared  by  the  home  government,  and  the 
policy  of  suppression  was  continued,  thus  widening  the 
breach  between  colonists  and  mother  country. 

1  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  689. 


CHAPTER  IV 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 

MUNICIPAL  ordinances  dealing  with  charities  and  cor- 
rection may  be  placed  under  three  heads,  as  they  relate  to 
paupers,  to  the  sick  and  to  prisoners.  Solving  the  problem 
of  relieving  the  needy  was  rendered  difficult  because  of  the 
tide  of  immigration  which  was  pouring  into  New  York 
even  in  colonial  days.  Foreigners  often  landed  in  port 
robbed  of  their  last  penny  by  avaricious  sea-captains  and 
sick  from  bad  rations,  foul  water  and  crowded  conditions  on 
shipboard.1  Other  immigrants  arrived  only  to  meet  with 
disappointment  and  to  find  no  opportunity  to  ply  their 
trades.  We  read  of  certain  Yorkshire  weavers  who,  upon 
arriving  here,  could  find  no  employment.2  Military  neces- 
sity occasionally  drove  refugees  to  this  city.  A  number 
of  Newfoundland  families  who  sought  protection  from  the 
raids  of  the  French,  in  1762,  had  to  be  cared  for  by  the 
municipality.3 

It  was  not  due  to  lack  of  legislation  that  paupers  were 
permitted  to  land,  for  the  province  had  required  masters  of 
vessels  to  inform  the  mayor,  within  twenty- four  hours  after 
arrival,  of  the  identity  and  the  condition  of  their  passengers.4 
If,  upon  examination,  immigrants  were  considered  unfit, 
either  they  were  shipped  back  to  the  port  of  embarkation, 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  9.  *Do£.  Hist.,  vol.  i,  p.  498. 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  297-298.  'Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  56-61. 

96  [296 


297]  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION  97 

or  else  the  captain  gave  £50  as  security  to  indemnify  the 
local  government.  Although  the  mayor  was  thus  vested 
with  full  powers  to  exclude  undesirable  immigrants,  he  was 
usually  lax  in  enforcing  the  law.1 

An  act  passed  in  1693  provided  for  a  poor  rate  which 
was  to  be  administered  by  a  board  of  vestrymen  and 
wardens,  who,  notwithstanding  their  title,  were  civil  and  not 
ecclesiastical  officers,  elected  annually  by  the  voters  of  the 
city.2  For  many  years  this  election  occurred  on  the  second 
Tuesday  in  January,  but  in  1770  the  date  was  changed  to 
September  29,  the  day  for  the  regular  municipal  elections.8 
At  first  ten  vestrymen  were  chosen,  but  after  1745,  there 
were  fourteen,  two  being  returned  from  each  ward.  In 
addition,  two  wardens  were  elected  from  the  city  at  large. 
The  vestry  of  the  municipality  was  in  no  way  associated 
with  that  of  Trinity  Church,  for  each  board  conducted  its 
affairs  independently  of  the  other.  The  former  was  a  civil 
body,  the  latter  was  ecclesiastical.  The  members  of  the 
city  vestry  were  usually  dissenters,  and  at  times  clashed 
with  the  Trinity  board.  This  is  shown  by  a  dispute  over  a 
charitable  bequest  which  had  fallen  to  the  latter,  but  which 
was  claimed  by  the  former  also.4 

At  first  the  poor  rate  was  collected  in  winter,  but  this 
time  of  the  year  proved  inconvenient  because  the  weather 
was  then  at  its  worst,  and  "  Family  expenses  were  higher 
than  at  any  other  season."  5  Therefore,  in  1775,  the  date 
of  assessment  was  postponed  to  the  first  Tuesday  in  May, 
and  collections  likewise  were  deferred.  The  annual  revenue 

1  Independent  Reflector,  Dec.  28,  1752. 

*  Col.  Laws,  vol.  i,  pp.  328-331. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  85-86. 

*Dix,  Hist,  of  Trinity  Church,  vol.  i,  p.  245. 

6  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  p.  719. 


cjg          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [2gS 

from  the  poor  tax  rose  steadily  to  several  thousand  pounds 
in  the  later  years  of  the  colonial  period.  During  times 
of  stress,  such  as  followed  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act, 
even  this  large  fund  proved  insufficient  to  relieve  the  needy, 
and  the  common  council  gave  £200  from  the  city  treasury 
to  wardens  for  the  aid  of  the  poor.1  Although  the  actual 
distribution  of  the  poor  fund  was  the  task  of  the  wardens, 
they  acted  usually  on  an  order  from  the  mayor's  court.2 
This  body  heard  appeals  for  aid,  and,  if  the  applicants  were 
considered  deserving,  the  court  ordered  the  wardens  to  pay 
specific  sums. 

For  want  of  a  municipal  poorhouse,  the  city's  paupers 
were  boarded  at  public  expense  in  private  families,  but  this 
system  was  economical  only  so  long  as  such  recipients  were 
few  in  number.  The  necessity  of  an  institution  for  the 
work  of  charities  and  correction  came,  in  time,  to  be  gener- 
ally felt.  The  Montgomerie  Charter,  in  1731,  took  official 
recognition  of  this  need  by  empowering  the  corporation  to 
construct  an  almshouse.3  In  December  1734,  the  common 
council  finally  voted  in  favor  of  the  proposal.4  The  under- 
taking was  financed  by  means  of  appropriations  from  the 
city  treasury,  not  from  the  poor  fund;  and  by  March  1736, 
the  new  almshouse,  a  two-story  brick  structure,  stood  ready 
for  occupancy,  near  the  site  of  the  present  City  Hall.5 

The  new  building  served  a  threefold  purpose.  In  the 
first  place,  it  was  used  as  a  house  of  correction,  where 
unruly  servants  and  disobedient  slaves  might  be  sent  by 
their  masters  to  be  whipped.  It  also  served  as  a  workhouse 
for  all  "  Beggars,  Servants  running  away  or  otherwise  mis- 
behaving themselves,  Trespassers,  Rogues,  Vagabonds,  poor 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  403-404. 

'Minutes  of  the  Mayor's  Court,  Nov.  19,  1723,  et  seq. 

*Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  617. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  240-241,  250-251.  */&{</.,  p.  307. 


299]  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION  99 

persons  refusing  to  work."  *  Lastly,  it  was  an  almshouse 
for  paupers,  both  old  and  young.  The  former  were  put  to 
work  at  spinning  or  at  farming,  but  young  paupers,  however, 
were  generally  hired  out  as  apprentices  to  inhabitants  of 
the  city.2 

In  March,  1736,  the  common  council  advertised  for  a 
suitable  keeper  and,  after  several  applicants  had  been  heard 
at  the  City  Hall,  the  position  was  awarded  to  John  Sebring 
at  an  annual  salary  of  £30,  together  with  board  and  lodg- 
ing for  himself  and  family.3  In  addition  to  this  allowance, 
the  keeper  generally  received,  for  every  servant  or  slave 
whipped,  is  6d  from  the  master.  The  lash  was  actually 
wielded  by  the  public  whipper,  who  was  hired  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  corporation,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that 
a  certain  keeper  was  allowed  £20,  besides  his  regular  salary, 
to  indemnify  him  for  "  the  many  perquisites  he  has  lost 
Occasioned  by  the  said  House  of  Correction  Being  Without 
any  Whipper  for  a  Considerable  time."  * 

At  the  monthly  meeting  of  the  city  vestry,  matters  con- 
cerning the  administration  of  the  almshouse  were  discussed, 
and  instructions  were  given  to  the  keeper.  If  he  failed  to 
observe  them,  the  vestrymen  could  petition  the  common 
council  for  his  dismissal,  as  in  the  case  of  one  Robert 
Provoost,  who  was  discharged  for  failure  to  obey  the  ves- 
try's orders.6 

The  aldermen  were  naturally  much  interested  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  almshouse.  As  members  of  the  common 
council,  they  voted  the  appropriations,  and,  on  two  occa- 
sions, they  issued  instructions  regarding  the  management  of 
charities.  In  1736  a  report  containing  detailed  directions 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  309.  *  Post-Boy,  June  18,  1750. 

3 Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  307.  'Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  385. 

6  Petition,  dated  May  30,  1755,  in  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 


I0o       Af£^  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [300 

was  presented  by  a  committee  of  the  common  council,1  and 
ten  years  later  fifty  copies  of  an  "  Essay  on  the  duties  of 
the  Vestrymen  "  were  printed  at  the  expense  of  the  cor- 
poration.2 As  justices,  the  aldermen  also  had  intimate 
dealings  with  affairs  relating  to  charities  and  correction. 
In  the  mayor's  court  they  committed  paupers  to  the  alms- 
house;  and  in  the  court  of  quarter  sessions  they  placed 
petty  criminals  in  the  custody  of  the  keeper  of  the  work- 
house. 

From  the  above  review,  it  must  be  apparent  that  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  work  connected  with  relieving  the  poor 
lacked  centralization,  entrusted,  as  it  was,  to  keeper,  war- 
dens, vestrymen,  and  aldermen.  With  responsibility  thus 
divided,  it  is  little  wonder  that  peculation  existed.3  The 
larger  part  of  the  charitable  work  in  the  city  was  always 
supported  by  private  individuals,  societies  and  churches, 
without  any  connection  with  civil  relief. 

Besides  the  relief  of  the  poor,  another  form  of  public 
charity  was  the  care  of  the  sick.  At  first  the  municipality 
performed  this  function  only  on  a  small  scale,  by  paying  the 
fees  of  a  local  doctor  for  his  attendance  on  sick  paupers. 
Later,  in  order  to  protect  the  community  from  contagion,  the 
sanitation  work  of  city  government  was  developed,  a  system 
of  quarantine  established,  a  pesthouse  built,  and  a  hospital 
supported. 

In  June  1738,  a  temporary  quarantine  was  instituted  on 
Bedloe's  Island  to  prevent  smallpox  from  being  brought  into 
the  city  by  vessels  hailing  from  South  Carolina  and  other 
places  where  the  dread  disease  was  then  raging.     The  pro- 
vincial council  entrusted  to  the  mayor  of  the  city  the  exe- 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  307-311-  'Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  213. 

*  Report  of  Peter  Curtenius,  in  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 
4  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  429. 


30i]  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 

cution  of  quarantine  regulations.  These  required  pilots  to 
steer  all  suspected  ships  to  Bedloe's  Island,  where  a  doctor 
inspected  all  persons  on  board,  and,  if  his  report  was  satis- 
factory, the  mayor  was  empowered  to  grant  the  captain 
permission  to  proceed  up  the  harbor.1  The  corporation  con- 
tinued to  perform  this  inspection  until  1755,  when  the  pro- 
vince assumed  exclusive  control  of  quarantine  regulations.2 

In  1758  the  common  council  purchased  all  of  Bedloe's 
Island  in  order  to  erect  a  building  for  the  reception  of  per- 
sons afflicted  with  contagious  diseases.3  Two  years  later  the 
structure  was  completed,  and  sick  persons  were  removed 
from  Manhattan  to  this  island.4  In  1773  the  corporation 
erected  barracks  on  the  same  island,  and  later  a  number  of 
British  soldiers  were  placed  in  these  quarters. 

Of  considerable  importance  to  the  welfare  of  the  city's 
poor  would  naturally  be  the  erection  of  a  hospital.  Such  an 
institution  was  established  in  1771,  through  the  royal  letters 
patent  granted  in  the  name  of  King  George  III.  The  orig- 
inal style  of  this  corporation  was  "  The  Society  of  the  Hos- 
pital in  the  City  of  New  York  in  America,"  its  present 
name,  "  The  Society  of  the  New  York  Hospital,"  having 
been  adopted  in  1810,  although  it  has' always  been  popularly 
called  the  New  York  Hospital.  As  chartered,  it  was  semi- 
public  in  character,  the  mayor,  the  recorder,  the  aldermen, 
and  even  the  assistant  aldermen,  being  ex-officio  members  of 
its  board  of  governors.  Both  provincial  and  city  govern- 
ments made  liberal  gifts  to  the  institution,  the  legislature 
voting  an  appropriation  of  £800  annually  for  twenty  years, 
and  the  municipality  offering,  as  a  site  for  the  hospital,  a 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  429. 

*Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  1071-1073. 
8M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  124-125. 
ilbid.,  pp.  162,  203;  vol.  vii,  p.  429. 


I02       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [3O2 

lot  of  land  124  by  248  feet  in  front  of  the  Commons,  a  tract 
including  the  present  City  Hall  Park.1  The  governors  of 
the  institution,  however,  decided  upon  a  five-acre  plot  of 
ground  west  of  Broadway,  between  Duane  and  Worth 
Streets,  and  asked  for  a  cash  bonus  in  lieu  of  the  land.  The 
common  council  responded  by  bestowing  £1,000  upon  the 
hospital  and,  in  addition,  by  offering  a  house  as  temporary 
quarters.  It  is  said  that  $18,000  was  spent  in  building  the 
hospital,  the  corner-stone  of  which  was  laid  in  1773,  but 
which  was  destroyed  by  fire  when  nearly  completed  in  1775. 
A  year  later  it  was  rebuilt,  but  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolu- 
tion prevented  its  utilization  as  planned.  It  was  requisi- 
tioned by  the  State  of  New  York  for  American  soldiers  and 
later  occupied  as  a  barracks  for  Hessian  troops. 

Passing  from  a  consideration  of  the  maintenance  of  the 
poor  and  the  sick,  we  turn  to  a  study  of  the  punishment 
of  criminals.  In  this  survey  we  must  remember  that  New 
York  in  the  colonial  period  merely  followed  harsh  practices 
common  during  the  eighteenth  century.  In  addition  to 
debtors  and  offenders  against  its  own  ordinances,  the  cor- 
poration was  required  to  support  in  its  jails,  and  also  to 
punish,  prisoners  of  the  province,  including  felons,  pirates 
and  captives  of  war.  This  task  was  performed  by  the 
municipality,  with  scarcely  any  subsidy  from  the  province.8 

For  many  years  the  corporation  used  the  basement  of  the 
City  Hall  as  a  jail  and  imposed  upon  the  supervisor  of 
the  watch  the  duties  of  prison  keeper.*  For  this  service  he 
was  given  rooms  in  the  building  and  lodging  for  his  family, 
and  was  usually  allowed  by  the  mayor's  court  four  shillings 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  311-312,  364. 

1  Stevens,  Colonial  Records,  p.  344. 

*  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  335.    Colden,  Letter  Book,  vol.  i,  p.  358. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  325,  370. 


303]  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION  103 

a  week  for  the  board  of  each  prisoner  who  might  be  "  an 
object  of  charity."  l  Prison  quarters  in  the  City  Hall  were 
retained  until  1759,  when  a  new  jail  was  constructed  in  the 
Fields,  at  the  northeast  corner  of  the  present  City  Hall 
Park.2  Andrew  Burnaby,  a  widely  traveled  Englishman, 
observed  that  it  was  one  of  the  finest  prisons  he  had  ever 
seen.3  Indeed,  it  was  a  solidly  built  brick  structure  with 
double  floorings  and  considerable  iron  work.  Though  com- 
monly known  as  the  "  New  Gaol  "  it  was  also  called  the 
Debtors'  Prison.4 

The  time  came  when  the  accommodations  of  even  the 
New  Gaol  were  found  inadequate.  One  reason  was  the 
overcrowding  of  the  building  through  the  imprisonment  of 
numerous  French  and  Indian  captives.  Another  cause  for 
the  need  of  additional  quarters  was  the  new  municipal  policy 
of  segregating  from  the  more  hardened  criminals  those  pris- 
oners who  were  confined  for  debt  or  for  light  offences.5  To 
carry  out  this  plan  two  rooms  of  the  new  jail  were  set  aside 
until  an  additional  building  could  be  erected. 

It  was  not  till  after  considerable  delay  that  the  common 
council  began  to  deliberate  on  the  plan  and  site  of  the 
"  Bridewell,"  as  the  new  structure  was  to  be  called.  The 
site  for  the  building  was  finally  decided  upon  in  the  Fields, 
on  what  is  now  Murray  Street,  on  a  line  with  the  new  jail 
and  the  almshouse.8 

Upon  its  completion,  in  1775,  the  bridewell,  a  grey  stone 
structure  of  two  stories  and  basement,  was  undoutbedly 
the  most  imposing  public  building  erected  on  Manhattan 
Island  during  the  colonial  period.  Historic  landmarks  were 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  422.    Minutes  of  Mayor's  Court,  op,  cit.,  passim. 
*  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  355-357.  s  Burnaby,  Travels,  p.  83. 

4  Historic  New  York,  vol.  ii,  p.  97. 
*Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  87.  *  Manual  (1862),  p.  553. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [304 

rapidly  erased,  owing  to  the  development  of  the  lower  city, 
but  the  bridewell  remained  for  over  sixty  years  an  the 
busiest  section  of  lower  Manhattan.  The  building  served 
the  British  as  a  prison  for  American  soldiers  captured  dur- 
ing the  Revolution;  and  it  is  said  that,  at  one  time,  over 
eight  hundred  prisoners  were  crowded  into  it,  although  the 
structure  was  not  expected  to  accommodate  half  that 
number.1 

The  corporation  was  not  fortunate  in  its  choice  of  prison 
keepers.  We  noted  that  the  duties  of  this  position  at  first 
had  been  regarded  as  so  simple  that  it  they  been  delegated  to 
the  supervisor  of  the  watch.  In  1738  the  two  offices  were 
separated,  and  the  common  council  appointed  as  jail-keeper 
one  James  Mills,  who  was  given  rooms  in  the  City  Hall  for 
himself  and  his  family.2  The  board,  in  1753,  chose  as  jailer 
a  man  named  John  Christie,  who  held  the  position  until 
his  death,  in  I756.3  This  incumbent  did  not  prove  satis- 
factory, for,  among  the  several  bills  he  submitted  for  the 
board  of  criminals  confined  in  the  prison,  was  one  for  £86, 
which  sum  was  considered  "very  unjust  and  unreasonable."4 
When  the  new  jail  was  completed,  the  common  council 
once  more  appointed  as  keeper  James  Mills,  and  his  service 
again  was  not  free  from  serious  fault.  At  one  time  he  was 
charged  before  the  supreme  court  with  maltreating  pris- 
oners under  his  care  and  was  also  indicted  for  extortion  by 
the  grand  jury.5  Notwithstanding  this  presentment,  the 
corporation  retained  Mills  as  keeper,  and  he  continued  to 
serve  in  this  capacity  until  his  death,  in  1771.° 

1  Journal  of  Oliver  Woodruff,  Westervelt  collection,  N.  Y.  Pub.  Library. 
1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  422.  s  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  430. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  63. 

5  Petition,  dated  Aug.  21,  1769,  in  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 
'  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  335. 


305]  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION  IC>5 

When  the  bridewell  was  established,  with  its  separate 
quarters  for  debtors  and  persons  confined  for  light  offences, 
an  additional  keeper  became  necessary.  Though  the  idea 
of  a  civil  service  examination  was  apparently  not  thought 
of  by  our  early  city  fathers,  still  they  were  open  minded 
enough  to  advertise  their  willingness  to  receive  proposals 
from  individuals  desiring  to  apply  for  the  position  of  cus- 
todian of  the  bridewell.  From  among  the  candidates  the 
common  council  selected  William  Dobbs,  who  received  a 
salary  of  £35  annually,  and  was  also  entitled  to  any  profits 
he  might  derive  from  hiring  out  prisoners  per  diem  to  the 
inhabitants.1  In  addition  the  keeper  was  paid  for  board- 
ing poor  prisoners  and  was  also  supplied  with  sundry  ma- 
terial such  as  straw,  coal  and  wood. 

The  tenure  of  William  Dobbs  as  bridewell  keeper  was 
threatened  in  August  1769,  when  John  Cox,  a  prisoner  in 
the  new  jail,  applied  for  the  same  position.2  In  his  peti- 
tion to  the  common  council  he  offered  to  give  security, 
and  also  to  reduce  the  expense  to  the  corporation  for  main- 
taining the  prison,  by  feeding  the  inmates  at  his  own  ex- 
pense. In  spite  of  these  proposals,  the  common  council 
deemed  it  unwise  to  leave  any  of  its  charges  to  the  care  of 
a  former  prisoner,  and  it  reappointed  William  Dobbs,  who 
continued  as  keeper  until  his  resignation,  in  I773-8  He 
was  succeeded  by  one  Alexander  Montcriff,  who  held  the 
position  until  the  Revolution. 

Sanitary  conditions  in  the  city  prisons  were  scarcely  com- 
mendable. Smallpox  on  one  occasion  appeared  among  the 
prisoners.  Occasionally  precautions  against  disease  were 
taken,  as  is  shown  in  the  following  extract  from  the  Mer- 
cury :  "  Nine  of  the  Indians  who  have  for  some  Time  past 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  89,  92,  213. 

J  Ibid.,  176.  *Ibid.,  pp.  414,  435. 


I06        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [306 

been  confined  in  the  New  Goal,  were  sent  to  several  Goals 
on  Long  Island,  lest  any  infectious  Disorder  should  arise 
from  the  Confinement  of  so  many  persons  together."  1 
Free  medical  inspection  was  accorded  to  poor  inmates  of  the 
city  prisons  when  need  arose;  for  example,  a  doctor  was  al- 
lowed £23  for  attendance  on  poor  persons  in  the  new  jail. 

Conditions  in  the  municipal  jails  were  not  considered 
satisfactory  even  by  contemporary  authorities.  Provincial 
officers  found  much  to  complain  of  in  the  prison  adminis- 
tration of  the  corporation;  sheriffs  protested  constantly  to 
the  common  council;  a  chief  justice  condemned  the  jails; 
and  a  grand  jury  brought  in  findings  against  the  cells  in  the 
City  Hall.3  Here  quarters  were  abominable,  but  even  in  the 
new  jail  and  in  the  bridewell  little  attention  was  accorded 
to  the  comfort  of  these  unfortunates.  The  suffering  in 
winter  is  described  by  the  Journal,  which  states  that  "  the 
Distress  of  the  Prisoners  confined  in  the  Goal  of  the  City 
appears  to  be  very  great,  they  being  in  want  not  only  of 
Firing  but  even  the  common  Necessaries  of  Life."  4  The 
unhappy  inmates  would  occasionally  issue  an  appeal  for 
public  aid  through  an  advertisement  such  as  the  following : 
"  Besides  our  Misfortune  of  Confinement,  we  are  under 
great  Necessity  for  want  of  Firing,  not  having  at  this  time 
[March]  one  Stick  to  burn;  nor  have  not  had  for  several 
Days,  and  unless  we  are  relieved  by  some  charitably  dis- 
posed Persons,  we  must  unavoidably  perish  in  this  Place."  5 

Fortunately  for  the  prisoners,  private  agencies  were  more 
helpful  than  was  the  government,  and  these  responded  gen- 
erously to  the  appeals  of  the  inmates.  The  distressful  case 
described  in  the  notice  above  was  relieved  by  private  sub- 

1  Mercury,  Sept.  17,  1764.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  411. 

*/&«/.,  vol.  iii,  p.  359.  'Journal,  Feb.  6,  1772. 

» Post-Boy,  March  n,  1751. 


307]  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 

scription.1  Benefit  performances  were  also  held  in  the  local 
theatre,  part  of  the  proceeds  being  contributed  to  the  relief 
of  prisoners.  Nor  did  the  church  neglect  this  opportunity 
for  dispensing  worthy  charity.  Ministers  also  offered  their 
services  in  another  way,  for  criminals  condemned  to  death 
on  the  gallows  were  usually  offered  the  solace  of  religious 
instruction.2 

The  wretched  condition  of  the  jails  gave  prisoners  ad- 
ditional reason  for  efforts  to  escape,  and  for  this  opportun- 
ity was  not  lacking.  According  to  the  Minutes  of.  the 
Mayor's  Court,  it  seemed  impossible  to  keep  a  prisoner  with- 
in the  cells  of  the  City  Hall,  once  he  had  determined  to 
leave.  The  newspapers  also  contain  accounts  of  many  dar- 
ing escapes.  As  part  of  the  responsibility  for  the  safe- 
keeping of  prisoners  rested  upon  the  sheriff,  he  usually  ad- 
vertised the  escape  of  criminals  and  offered  a  reward  for 
their  capture.3  The  keeper  of  the  jail  also  shared  in  the 
blame  for  such  derelictions  and  occasionally  gave  £5  for  the 
return  of  a  fugitive. 

Besides  imprisonment,  other  means  of  correcting  offen- 
ders were  used,  whipping  being  the  commonest.  For  ac- 
knowledging himself  to  be  a  Roman  Catholic,  one  resident, 
in  1745,  was  so  unfortunate  as  to  receive  eleven  lashes  on 
the  bare  back,  and  for  stealing  a  handkerchief  another  was 
given  nine  stripes.4  Either  the  whipping  took  place  in  front 
of  the  house  of  corrections,  or,  else  the  criminal  was  tied 
to  a  cart  and  paraded  through  the  streets.5  Such  punish- 
ment was  not  confined  to  men  alone.  At  one  time  eleven 
women  of  bad  reputations  were  disciplined  at  the  whipping 
post.6  Other  means  of  punishment,  so  popularly  associated 

i  Post-Boy,  March  18,  1751.  *  Journal,  Feb.  12,  1767. 

8  Post-Boy,  June  4,  1750. 

4  Minutes  of  Court  of  General  Sessions,  May  8,  1745. 

5  Mercury,  Feb.  n,  1760;  Post-Boy,  Nov.  27,  1752. 
*Ibid.,  Aug.  II,  1755. 


108        AT£^  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [308 

with  colonial  times,  are  seldom  mentioned  in  the  records  of 
the  period  under  review.  To  the  ducking  stool  no  reference 
can  be  found,  and  even  the  stocks  cease  to  be  mentioned  in 
the  minutes  of  the  common  council  after  I74O.1  One  news- 
paper, so  late  as  1764,  states  that  "  a  New  Pillory  with  a 
large  Wooden  Cage  behind  it,  was  erected  between  the  New 
Goal  and  the  Work  House.  The  Cage  is  said  to  be  de- 
signed for  disorderly  Boys,  Negroes,  &c.  who  publickly  break 
the  Sabbath."  2 

The  number  of  criminals  hanged  in  the  city  was  appalling, 
for  the  old  English  penal  code  with  its  numerous  capital 
offences  lost  little  of  its  severity  as  enforced  in  the  colony.* 
At  one  sitting  of  the  supreme  court,  three  men  were  con- 
demned to  death  on  the  gallows :  John  Higgins,  for  alter- 
ing bills  of  credit,  and  John  Anderson  and  Abraham  Van 
Arnum  for  burglary.4 

From  the  facts  thus  considered,  several  general  ten- 
dencies in  the  administration  of  charities  and  correction  may 
be  noted.  It  is  clear  that  this  function  was  shifted  almost 
entirely  from  the  province  to  the  municipality.  The  city 
fathers,  in  turn,  were  not  very  active  in  charitable  under- 
takings, and  depended  to  a  large  extent  upon  private  aid  in 
caring  for  the  indigent.  In  dealing  with  its  dependent 
classes,  the  city  of  New  York,  as  a  typical  eighteenth  cen- 
tury government,  generally  followed  a  policy  which  implied 
neglect  of  both  health  and  comfort.  However,  with  the 
close  of  the  period,  signs  of  a  broader  social  view  appear 
in  the  generous  contribution  toward  the  New  York  Hospital, 
in  the  building  of  more  commodious  jails,  and  in  the  separa- 
tion of  prisoners  according  to  the  degree  of  their  offense. 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  8.  J  Mercury,  Sept.  10,  1764. 

8  Vide,  Minutes  of  Supreme  Court,  op.  cit.,  passim. 
4  Mercury,  Feb.  i,  1762. 


CHAPTER  V 
KEEPING  THE  PEACE 

THE  cosmopolitan  population  of  New  York  contained 
several  elements  tending  to  promote  crime.  Besides  the 
normal  amount  of  disorder  to  be  expected  from  a  large 
community,  breaches  of  the  peace  were  frequently  caused 
by  the  unruly  acts  of  soldiers,  sailors,  slaves,  and  transported 
felons. 

As  New  York  was  a  garrison  town,  it  was  burdened  with 
the  presence  of  British  regulars  who  were  always  creating 
trouble  for  the  local  authorities.  Occasionally  encounters 
between  these  soldiers  and  the  municipal  guardians  of  the 
peace  occurred.  One  of  such  disturbances  took  place  on  a 
winter  night  in  1764,  when  a  party  of  redcoats  attempted  to 
rescue  one  of  their  officers  confined  in  the  city  jail  for  debt.1 
The  soldiers,  fully  armed,  advanced  upon  the  prison,  dis- 
charged their  guns  and  forced  their  way  through  the  gates. 
Alarm  bells  aroused  the  inhabitants  and  soon  brought  the 
city  militia  to  the  scene.  Then  followed  an  encounter  in 
which  several  persons  received  serious  injuries  and  a  ser- 
geant lost  his  life.  A  general  jail  delivery  was  halted,  as, 
notwithstanding  the  confusion,  only  four  prisoners  made 
their  escape. 

The  disorderly  conduct  of  the  soldiers  was  at  times  emu- 
lated by  their  wives,  some  of  whom  were  now  and  then 
brought  before  the  mayor's  court.  From  the  records  of 

1  Post-Boy,  Jan.  19,  1764. 
309]  109 


IIO       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [3^ 

that  body  we  are  informed  that  Frances  Sutton,  wife  of  one 
of  the  soldiers,  was  held  by  the  court  until  she  could  "  find 
justices  for  her  good  Behaviour  and  her  Personal  Appear- 
ance at  the  Next  Sessions,  for  a  Notorious  assault  and 
Breach  of  the  Peace  by  her  Committed  upon  Judith  Roberts 
and  Breaking  of  her  Windows."  1 

Military  officers  often  caused  serious  disturbances  by 
leading  press-gangs  through  the  city.  This  was  the  case 
again  and  again,  during  the  last  intercolonial  war  between 
England  and  France,  when  men  were  sorely  needed  to  fill 
the  ranks  and  to  maintain  the  ships  of  war  to  their  full 
complement.  At  times  the  press  was  actively  resisted,  this 
resulting  in  bloody  encounters.  One  Sunday  morning  in 
April  1758,  one  Captain  Farmer,  accompanied  by  a  file  of 
soldiers,  boarded  the  "Charming  Jenny,"  a  ship  moored  to 
one  of  the  city  wharves.2  He  seized  several  sailors  but 
four  others  escaped  to  the  roundhouse,  where,  armed  with 
blunderbusses,  they  bade  defiance  to  their  would-be  captors. 
Captain  Farmer  and  a  city  magistrate  called  upon  them 
to  surrender,  but  their  only  answer  was  a  sharp  volley, 
resulting  in  the  death  of  the  captain.  A  party  of  regulars 
then  stormed  the  roundhouse,  seized  the  four  sailors  and 
soon  lodged  them  in  jail  under  a  charge  of  murder.  On 
the  same  morning  another  press-gang  was  active  in  the  out- 
skirts of  the  city.  Here  a  house  was  surrounded,  but  its 
inmates  refused  to  answer  the  boisterous  summons  of  the 
soldiers.  The  officer  in  command  lost  patience  and  ordered 
his  men  to  open  fire.  One  of  the  inmates  was  killed  and  an- 
other was  wounded.  This  outrage  was  not  permitted  to 
pass  unpunished,  for  a  coroner's  verdict  of  murder  was 
found  against  the  officer  in  charge. 

1  Minutts  of  the  Mayor's  Court,  Jan.  20,  1724. 
1 Gazette,  May  r,  1758. 


3 1 1  ]  KEEPING  THE  PEACE  l  x  z 

Even  more  serious  than  these  occurrences  was  the  at- 
tempt to  impress  the  crew  of  the  "  Samson,"  a  formidable 
vessel  of  twenty-two  guns  and  sixty-seven  men.1  As  the 
"  Samson  "  sailed  up  the  harbor,  it  was  hailed  by  a  barge 
from  the  "  Winchester,"  a  British  man-of-war.  The  crew 
of  the  merchantman  knew  full  well  the  object  of  such  a  visit 
and  opened  fire  as  the  barge  came  within  musket  range, 
killing  four  men.  The  "  Samson  "  in  full  sail  then  hurried 
to  dock.  The  "  Winchester "  followed,  the  aid  of  the 
lieutenant  governor  was  quickly  enlisted,  and  a  warrant  was 
secured  from  the  mayor  for  the  arrest  of  the  seamen. 
These,  however,  outwitted  the  authorities,  came  ashore 
fully  armed  at  some  distance  from  the  city,  and  escaped. 

The  size  of  these  press-gangs  was  at  times  exceedingly 
large  and  their  work  was  very  extensive.  On  one  occasion, 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city  were  roused  from  their  sleep  in 
the  early  hours  of  the  morning  by  the  heavy  tramp  of  three 
thousand  soldiers  marching  through  the  streets  in  search  of 
men  for  the  army.2  From  taverns  and  even  from  private 
houses  the  unfortunates  were  dragged,  until  eight  hundred 
had  been  seized.  Only  half  of  this  number,  however,  were 
detained.  The  vessels  in  the  harbor  were  then  visited  by 
squads  of  soldiers,  and  many  unwilling  recruits  were 
brought  ashore. 

How  the  public  viewed  these  proceedings  may  be  illus- 
trated by  an  occurrence  in  1764.  Four  fishermen  had 
been  taken  from  their  boats  while  on  their  way  to  the  city 
markets  and  had  been  held  on  board  the  "  Leander,"  a  ship 
of  the  royal  navy.8  Shortly  after,  when  the  captain  came 
ashore,  he  found  himself  surrounded  by  a  threatening  mob 

1  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  vii,  p.  446. 

'Ford,  Journals  of  Hugh  Game  (N.  Y.,  1902),  vol.  ii,  p.  8. 

*Dawson,  Sons  of  Liberty  in  New  York  (N.  Y.,  1859),  pp.  54-55. 


II2        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [3I2 

of  angry  citizens.  The  naval  officer  prudently  extricated 
himself  from  this  dangerous  position  by  proceeding  to  a 
nearby  coffee  house  and  signing  an  order  for  the  release  of 
the  four  fishermen.  A  party  was  immediately  dispatched 
to  the  "  Leander  "  with  the  order,  and  in  a  short  time  the 
men  were  brought  to  land.  But  the  mob,  not  fully  satisfied 
with  these  amends,  seized  the  captain's  barge,  dragged  it 
through  the  streets  to  the  Fields  and  there  set  it  on  fire.  As 
soon  as  the  work  was  accomplished,  the  crowds  dispersed, 
and,  when  the  city  magistrates  met  in  the  afternoon,  they 
discreetly  concluded  that  it  was  impossible  "  to  discover  any 
persons  in  the  mischief." 

In  the  following  statement  Lieutenant  Governor  Golden 
also  testified  to  the  general  disapproval  of  impressment: 

Some  other  Captains  of  His  Majesty's  ships  had  distressed  the 
town  by  pressing  men  from  the  market-boats  &  wood  boats  & 
by  other  acts  of  severity,  whereby  the  people  in  the  town  & 
country  had  generally  received  strong  prejudice;  and  the 
Merchants  in  this  port  had  suffered  by  their  seamen's  re- 
moving to  the  neighboring  Colonies  where  they  were  free 
from  any  press.1 

Since  the  city  was  a  port  visited  by  many  vessels,  it 
always  contained  a  large  transient  population  from  which 
trouble  might  well  be  expected.  Sailors  on  shore  leave 
frequented  low  water-front  groggeries  where  flourished 
gambling  and  vice,  and  drunken  brawls  occurred,  sometimes 
ending  in  murder.  Captains  of  privateers,  seeking  crews, 
made  their  quarters  at  these  taverns.  Here  would  be 
planned  those  bold,  half-piratical  ventures  against  Spanish 
and  French  commerce.  Then,  too,  incoming  ships  brought 
numerous  convicts  transported  fresh  from  English  prisons 
to  the  colonies.2  These  unfortunates,  without  immediate 

lCol.  Docs.,  vol.  vii,  p.  446.      *  Independent  Reflector,  March  5,  1753. 


313]  KEEPING  THE  PEACE 

means  of  subsistence,  would  often  steal  or  break  into  houses. 
Such  offences  had  become  so  frequent  by  1742,  that  the 
"  watch,"  as  the  city  police  force  was  termed,  had  to  be 
augmented,  in  order  to  maintain  a  more  effective  surveil- 
ance  over  the  "  Great  Numbers  of  people  Coming  into  this 
City  from  all  parts:  Some  whereof  are  Suspected  to  be 
Convict  ffelons :  Transported  from  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland."  1 

In  keeping  order  the  city  authorities  were  confronted  with 
a  serious  problem  arising  from  the  presence  of  large  num- 
bers of  negro  slaves.  Most  of  them  were  the  descendants 
of  blacks  brought  to  Manhattan  by  slave  traders,  either 
during  the  Dutch  period  or  in  the  early  years  of  British  oc- 
cupation.2 Comparatively  few  negroes  were  brought  into 
New  York  in  the  later  English  period,  as  is  evidenced  by 
the  census  figures,  which  show  that  the  negro  population 
reached  its  maximum  proportion  about  1746,  when  it 
amounted  to  over  one-fifth  of  the  total  population  of  the 
city.3  From  then  until  the  Revolution  the  blacks  declined 
in  relative  importance,  as  their  number  was  increased  by 
only  a  few  hundreds,  while  the  number  of  whites  was  aug- 
mented by  thousands. 

The  slave  population  was  located  mainly  in  the  settled 
districts  of  the  city.  Apparently  very  few  were  employed 
in  farming,  as  one  census  for  the  Out  Ward,  the  rural  dis- 
trict of  Manhattan,  showed  but  forty-three  slaves  in  that 
section.4  They  were  usually  employed  in  operating  ferry  or 
market  boats,  driving  carts,  hauling  water  and  performing 
general  domestic  services.5 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  77 ;  see  also  vol.  iv,  p.  123. 

2  Historic  New  York,  vol.  ii,  pp.  3-11.  *  See  chapter  i. 

4  Miscellaneous  Manuscripts  in  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 

5Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  89-90,  461.    Gazette,  June  12,  1749. 


II4       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [314. 

Not  all  negroes  were  slaves,  a  considerable  number  of 
them  having  been  manumitted.  A  master  would  appear  in 
the  court  of  quarter  sessions  and  ask  that  freedom  be  given 
a  certain  black  servant  because  of  long  and  faithful  service. 
The  freedmen  possessed  legal  rights  to  a  certain  degree, 
for  we  find  them  coming  before  the  courts  as  plaintiffs  de- 
manding unpaid  wages. 

Of  course  there  were  many  harsh  masters,  and  at  times 
these  were  upheld  by  the  community  in  acts  of  cruelty.  One 
of  these  was  John  Van  Zandt,  who,  when  his  negro  servant, 
was  brought  home  by  the  city  watchmen  one  night,  liberally 
applied  a  horsewhip  upon  the  offender.  The  next  morning 
the  black  was  found  dead  in  bed,  and  it  was  rumored  that 
his  death  was  the  result  of  the  chastisement  received  the 
night  before.  A  coroner's  jury,  however,  cleared  Van 
Zandt,  finding  that  "  the  Correction  given  by  the  Master 
was  not  the  Cause  of  his  Death,  but  that  it  was  by  the 
Visitation  of  God."  x 

It  is  little  wonder  that  many  blacks  were  at  times  restless 
and  discontented  because  of  harsh  treatment,  and,  observing 
this,  the  whites  naturally  had  to  maintain  a  constant  watch 
against  uprisings.  The  so-called  "  Negro  Conspiracy  "  of 
1741  was  a  product  of  this  continual  anxiety.  A  review 
of  this  episode  is  of  interest  here,  as  it  throws  light  upon 
the  problem  of  guarding  public  safety  in  New  York  during 
the  early  days.2  The  trouble  started  with  several  robberies, 
in  February  1741,  when  suspicion  fell  upon  certain  negroes 
who  frequented  the  house  of  John  Hughson,  a  white  man  of 
bad  repute.  Soon  after,  he  was  accused  of  having  received 
stolen  goods,  of  harboring  negroes,  and  of  permitting  them 

1  Journal,  Jan.  5,  1735. 

1  The  best  account  is  the  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  in  the  Detection 
of  the  Conspiracy  (N.  Y.,  1744),  written  by  Recorder  Daniel  Hors- 
manden,  who  led  in  the  prosecution  of  the  accused  negroes. 


315]  KEEPING  THE  PEA  CE  !  !  5 

to  use  his  house  for  their  drunken  orgies.  In  the  following 
month  several  buildings  in  the  Fort  at  the  lower  end  of 
Manhattan  were  destroyed  by  fire.  Within  the  next  few 
weeks  several  small  fires  started  here  and  there,  but  they 
were  quickly  extinguished.  Certain  individuals  of  excitable 
nature  now  believed  they  saw  a  connection  between  the  rob- 
bery of  the  previous  month  and  the  recent  fires.  Was  not 
Hughson  seeking  vengeance  for  his  arrest?  Perhaps  the 
blacks  were  being  supported  in  their  mischief  by  the  Spanish, 
who  were  supposed  to  have  as  their  aim  the  implanting  of 
popery  in  the  colony  of  New  York.  This  senseless  hysteria 
was  easily  increased  to  the  proportions  of  an  epidemic.  In- 
deed, even  persons  of  calm  judgment  were  fully  convinced 
that  the  blacks  intended  to  destroy  the  city  and  murder  the 
whites.  Any  negro  whose  actions  were  in  the  least  degree 
suspicious  was  immediately  arrested,  so  that  in  a  short  time 
the  jails  were  overcrowded.  A  proclamation  offering  a 
reward  to  informers  soon  brought  forward  a  white  woman, 
Mary  Burton,  who  was  willing  to  manufacture  such  evi- 
dence as  the  magistrates  were  obviously  eager  to  secure. 
Her  wild  and  impossible  stories  added  to  the  consternation. 
The  militia  was  called  out.  Hundreds  of  inhabitants  moved 
their  household  belongings  from  the  city,  which  in  their 
minds  was  doomed  to  destruction.  These  panic  stricken 
persons  then  sought  safety  in  the  Bowery  and  in  Harlem, 
and  nightly  awaited  the  dread  outbreak  of  a  servile  in- 
surrection. Meantime  the  negroes,  the  cause  of  all  this 
groundless  fear,  were  being  huddled  into  jail  and  terrorized 
into  confessing  the  most  improbable  crimes.  Upon  this 
conflicting  testimony  several  persons  were  condemned,  after 
trials  which  conformed  to  all  legal  requirements  of  the  day. 
Quack  and  Cuffee,  two  negroes,  were  the  first  to  be  executed. 
The  poor  wretches,  protesting  their  innocence,  were  dragged 
to  the  stake  through  an  angry  crowd  of  spectators.  Every 


H6       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [3I6 

effort  was  made  to  extort  a  confession  from  them,  and  at 
length  they  made  statements  satisfactory  to  the  magistrates. 
One  of  these  now  desired  to  delay  the  execution,  but  was 
deterred  from  doing  so  by  the  determined  attitude  of  the 
by-standers.  Fagots  were  piled  around  the  negroes  and  the 
torch  was  applied.  Hughson,  his  wife,  and  another  white 
woman  were  hanged  for  participation  in  the  supposed  con- 
spiracy. For  several  weeks,  negroes  were  hurried  to  the 
stake,  begging  for  mercy  until  their  shrieks  were  silenced 
by  the  crackling  flames.  For  days,  the  bodies  of  blacks 
hung  in  chains  from  the  gibbets  until  the  stench  of  decom- 
position became  a  menace  to  public  health.  By  summer 
the  panic  at  last  subsided,  and  once  more  reason  was 
restored. 

What  judgment  of  the  whole  affair  is  reached  by  an  im- 
partial investigation?  An  analysis  of  the  available  sources 
of  information,  including  Horsmanden's  Journal  of  the 
Conspiracy,  leads  one  to  doubt  absolutely  the  existence  of 
any  such  plot.  In  fact,  Horsmanden  admitted  that  even 
in  his  own  time  there  were  "  some  wanton,  wrong-headed 
Persons  amongst  us,  who  took  the  Liberty  to  arraign  the 
Justice  of  the  Proceedings,  .  .  .  [and]  declared  That  there 
was  no  Plot  at  all."  1  Whatever  may  be  the  facts,  this 
instance  of  utter  brutality  forms  a  fitting  interlude  between 
the  horrors  of  Salem  witchcraft  on  the  one  hand  and 
modern  lynchings  on  the  other. 

Turning  now  from  these  serious  offences  against  public 
order,  we  find  accounts  of  numerous  violations  common  to 
most  communities,  even  at  the  present  day.  These  acts 
varied  in  the  degree  of  their  gravity.  From  the  court 
records  we  learn  of  such  minor  offenders  as  Joseph  and 
Edward  Anderson,  who  were  arrested  for  grievously  as- 

1  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  in  the  Detection  of  the  Conspiracy,  pre- 
face, p.  v. 


317]  KEEPING  THE  PEA  CE  j  1 7 

saulting  a  watchman  who  was  marching  them  to  the  guard 
house  for  playing  with  a  bat  and  ball  during  the  time  of 
divine  service.1  Gambling  houses  and  their  suppression 
constituted  a  serious  problem  even  in  colonial  days.  The 
evil  results  arising  from  their  presence  were  fully  under- 
stood by  the  better  class  of  citizens,  and  they  petitioned  the 
common  council  "  to  suppress  those  Gaming  Houses,  es- 
pecially all  Billyard,  Truck  Tables  and  Cards  &c :  to  which 
are  owing  the  Impoverishment  and  Ruin  of  many  in  this 
place,  who  having  contracted  a  habit  of  Gaming  in  their 
Youth,  have  not  been  able  to  Leave  it  till  Reduced  to  meer 
Beggery."  2  Prostitution  was  a  widespread  evil  and  its  sup- 
pression proved  difficult.  Raids  upon  brothels  were  fre- 
quent, and  at  times  sharp  conflicts  between  the  inmates 
and  the  city  watch  resulted.3 

In  addition  to  the  lawless  deeds  mentioned  above,  the 
municipality  was  frequently  obliged  to  restrain  the  violence 
of  mobs  composed  of  its  own  citizens.4  Executions  were 
always  well  attended  by  a  gathering,  sympathetic  or  hostile, 
according  to  the  effect  of  the  offender's  crime  upon  the  public, 
and  it  often  required  a  heavy  guard  to  see  that  the  law  took 
its  proper  course.  When  feeling  ran  high  in  favor  of  the 
condemned  man,  threats  would  be  made  to  rescue  him  from 
his  executioners,  and  in  such  cases  it  became  necessary  to 
send  for  the  garrison  of  the  Fort  to  reenforce  the  civil  offi- 
cers.5 Again,  it  was  difficult  at  times  to  restrain  a  mob  bent 
upon  venting  its  wrath  against  one  who  had  committed  a 
particularly  outrageous  offense. 

1  Minutes  of  Quarter  Sessions,  May  4,  1738. 

2Af.  C.  C.t  vol.  iv,  pp.  311-312. 

J  Minutes  of  Quarter  Sessions,  May  4,  1738.    Post-Boy,  Aug.  n,  1755. 

4  Ibid.,  Jan.  7,  14,  April  22,  1754. 

6  Golden  Letter  Book,  vol.  i,  p.  165. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

This  survey  of  the  disturbing  factors  in  the  city  indicates 
that  the  problem  of  preserving  order  was  quite  difficult.  It 
was  solved  partly  by  passing  severe  municipal  ordinances 
against  the  disorderly  classes  mentioned  above,  and  partly 
by  maintaining  a  patrol  of  the  streets. 

The  municipality  was  apparently  unable  to  curb  the  law- 
lessness of  the  soldiers  of  the  garrison,  since  these  often 
were  shielded  by  the  provincial  authorities.  We  even  find 
Lieutenant  Governor  Golden  reprieving  a  naval  officer  who 
had  been  convicted  of  murdering  a  woman.1  Restrictive 
measures  were  passed  against  disorderly  persons  entering 
New  York  from  other  colonies  or  from  the  mother  coun- 
try. If  an  offender,  brought  before  the  municipal  court, 
hailed  from  a  neighboring  province,  he  not  only  received 
punishment  but  also  was  sent  from  the  colony.2  In  a  vain 
effort  to  discover  felons  transported  from  England,  all  mas- 
ters of  in-coming  vessels  were  required  to  give  the  mayor, 
within  twenty-four  hours  of  arrival,  the  names  of  their 
passengers.3  A  number  of  years  later,  the  ordinance  was 
modified  to  the  extent  of  allowing  sea  captains  but  two  hours 
to  present  their  reports.*  But  even  these  regulations  were 
not  enforced  by  the  city  officers.  Such  conditions  led  per- 
sons to  wonder  why  "  Thieves,  Burglars,  Pick- Pockets, 
and  Cut- Purses,  and  a  Herd  of  the  most  flagitious  Banditti 
upon  earth  should  be  sent  as  agreeable  Companions  "  to  the 
respectable  citizens  of  New  York.5 

Occasionally  the  province  entered  the  field  of  police  legis- 
lation and  enacted  statutes  to  improve  the  moral  tone  of  the 
inhabitants.  The  present  anti-gambling  law  of  New  York 

1  Golden  Letter  Book,  voL  i,  p.  43. 

2  Minutes  of  Quarter  Sessions,  op.  cit.,  passim;  Post-Boy,  Nov.  g,  1747. 
•M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  80.  *Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  476. 

*  Independent  Reflector,  March  15,  1753. 


319]  KEEPING  THE  PEACE  IIO, 

State  finds  its  counterpart  in  a  provincial  act  "  to  Restrain 
Disorderly  and  Unlawful  gameing  Houses  in  the  Colony  of 
New  York."  *  The  provisions  of  another  act  were  aimed 
at  unscrupulous  tavern  keepers  who  were  wont  to  have  in 
their  possession  billiard  tables  and  shuffle  boards.2  Such 
games  of  chance  as  dice  and  cards  also  were  proscribed  by 
this  statute.  Another  law  forbade  the  operation  of  private 
lotteries,  which  it  appears  encouraged  "  Labouring  People 
to  Assemble  together  at  Taverns."  3 

Besides  above  mentioned  legislative  provisions  for  pre- 
serving order,  the  municipality  maintained  an  administrative 
force,  known  as  the  "  watch."  A  study  of  its  organization 
is  difficult,  for,  during  the  period  under  review,  it  was  fre- 
quently changed.  In  December  1731,  the  common  council 
passed  an  ordinance  providing  for  a  citizen's  watch  com- 
posed of  all  inhabitants  living  in  the  six  wards  south  of 
Fresh  Water  Pond.  Any  one  not  wishing  to  serve  in  person 
was  permitted  to  offer  a  substitute  in  "  his,  her  or  their 
Stead."  *  Women  were  therefore  recognized  as  eligible 
for  duty  on  the  watch,  but  there  is  no  record  of  a  woman 
actually  serving  in  that  capacity  in  colonial  New  York.  To 
prevent  evasion  of  the  ordinance,  each  alderman  made  a 
list  of  all  residents  in  his  ward,  and,  based  on  the  population 
of  each  district,  assignments  for  duty  on  the  watch  were 
fixed.  Consequently  every  night  at  least  eight  able-bodied 
men  began  to  watch  at  nine  P.  M.  and  remained  on  duty 
until  four  A.  M.  From  October  to  March,  however,  they 
reported  an  hour  earlier  and  served  until  two  hours  later 
in  the  morning. 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  460-462. 

2  Minutes  of  Quarter  Sessions,  May  3,   1749.    Minutes  of  Supreme 
Court,  May  21,  1759. 

8  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  675-676. 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  122-128. 


I20       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [320 

The  officers  directly  in  charge  of  the  watch  were  the  con- 
stables, two  of  whom  were  elected  annually  in  each  ward. 
The  position  of  constable  was  so  little  desired  by  citizens  that 
the  common  council  imposed  a  fine  of  £5  or  £10  upon 
those  who,  after  being  duly  elected,  refused  to  serve.1  This 
penalty  was  imposed  upon  one  Robert  Bowne,  who  in  1742 
was  chosen  constable  for  the  Montgomerie  Ward  but  de- 
clined on  the  ground  that  an  acceptance  of  the  position  was 
incompatible  with  his  religious  tenets.  Fortunately  for 
Bowne,  his  stand  was  upheld  in  court  by  the  chief  justice, 
who  declared  that  "  no  Quaker  was  Compellable  to  Serve 
[in]  the  Office  of  Constable  itt  being  an  Office  of  Trust."  z 
The  undesirability  of  the  position  of  constable  may  be  at- 
tributed to  the  onerous  duties  attached  to  it.  In  addition 
to  serving  as  guards  on  certain  nights,  the  constables  were 
expected  to  notify  inhabitants  one  day  in  advance  of  their 
turn  on  the  watch.  For  any  irregularities,  such  as  "  Neglect- 
ing or  Refusing  to  Watch  as  Aforesaid,  or  being  Drunk  on 
the  said  Watch,  or  leaving  his  Watch  before  his  time  of 
Watching  be  Expired,"  the  constable  was  liable  to  a  fine  of 
forty  shillings.3 

The  officer  at  the  head  of  the  watch  was  the  high  con- 
stable, who  was  appointed  annually  by  the  mayor.  At  first 
it  was  customary  to  limit  the  tenure  to  one  year,  and  to  choose 
one  of  the  constables  elected  for  that  year.  But  in  time  the 
selection  was  not  confined  to  former  constables ;  instead  some 
prominent  citizen  was  chosen  who,  as  a  rule,  served  for 
several  years.  The  incumbents  of  this  office  acted  without 
pay  until  1773,  after  which  date  they  were  allowed  £10  per 
annum.4 

The  high  constable  was,  after  all,  merely  the  nominal 

1Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  156,  182,  277.      'Ibid.,  p.  82. 

1  Ibid.,  iv,  p.  126.  *Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  p.  98. 


321]  KEEPING  THE  PEACE  I2i 

head  of  the  watch,  for  the  real  executive  officer  was  the 
supervisor.  Under  an  ordinance  of  December  1731,  this 
officer  had  many  duties,  for  general  superintendence  of  the 
watch  was  assigned  to  him.  He  was  expected  to  take  notice 
of  absence  from  the  watch  on  the  part  both  of  citizens  and 
of  constables,  and  to  deliver  the  names  of  delinquents  to 
the  aldermen  of  the  various  wards  or  to  the  mayor  on  the 
next  day.  Robert  Crannell,  a  marshal,  was  appointed  su- 
pervisor by  the  common  council  in  1731  at  a  salary  of  £20 
per  annum. 

A  watch-house  was  erected  in  Broad  Street  in  1731,  at  a 
cost  of  £60.  According  to  the  report  of  a  committee  of  the 
common  council,  it  was  a  two^room  brick  building,  the 
dimensions  of  which  were  twenty-eight  by  eighteen  feet.1 
One  chamber,  fitted  with  chairs  and  tables,  was  for  the  use 
of  the  guards,  while  the  other  was  for  the  confinement  of 
prisoners  arrested  by  the  watchmen  during  the  night.  Sev- 
eral years  later  the  corporation  erected  another  watch-house 
for  the  accommodation  of  the  men  who  were  detailed  to 
guard  the  city  powder  magazine  during  the  year  1 746,  when 
an  attack  from  the  French  was  expected.2 

The  police  system,  as  established  in  1731,  obtained  only 
until  November  1734,  when  a  new  plan  was  instituted.  In 
place  of  a  force  composed  of  inhabitants  who  served  but  a 
few  nights  at  a  time,  a  fixed  guard  known  as  the  "constables 
watch,"  was  employed.3  It  was  divided  into  two  squads, 
each  made  up  of  five  watchmen  and  a  constable,  and  each 
doing  duty  on  alternate  nights.  Each  watchman  received 
from  the  city  £5  IDS  for  five  months'  service,  205  being 
allowed  in  addition  for  "  Encouragement  to  the  Constables 
to  be  diligent  and  Circumspect  in  performance  of  the  Dutys 
of  their  Office."  4  The  corporation  also  supplied  the  watch 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  65-66.  *Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  183. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  238,  239,  240.  4  Ibid.,  p.  239. 


I22       HEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [-522 

with  necessary  fire  and  light.  New  York  was  guarded  by 
this  force  through  the  winter  of  1734-1735. 

During  the  following  five  years  the  corporation  main- 
tained a  very  irregular  watch.  Though  it  was  deemed  im- 
portant to  patrol  the  streets  carefully  in  the  long,  dark  nights 
of  winter,  the  common  council  did  not  feel  the  need  of 
employing  the  same  guard  during  the  summer  months. 
Therefore,  in  May  1735,  they  reduced  the  number  of  watch- 
men from  ten  to  six,  and  hired  these  only  for  a  period  of 
two  months.1  The  number  of  watchmen  varied  also  from 
year  to  year.  In  1738  the  force  was  increased  to  twelve, 
but  in  the  following  year  it  was  reduced  to  three.2  How 
this  small  group,  hired  only  temporarily,  could  efficiently 
guard  the  lives  and  property  of  ten  thousand  persons  it  is 
very  difficult  to  understand. 

In  1741  the  serious  disturbances  incident  to  the  "  Negro 
Conspiracy  "  undoubtedly  taxed  the  powers  of  the  feeble 
police  force.  The  fear  of  further  slave  insurrections  finally 
made  the  provincial  government  realize  the  inadequacy  of 
the  existing  watch,  and  led  it  to  establish  in  the  city  a  guard 
of  able  bodied  citizens  called  a  military  watch.3  But  in  the 
same  year  this  plan  was  abandoned,  and  the  province  per- 
mitted the  common  council  to  substitute  a  new  night  watch 
consisting  of  thirty-six  men,  divided  into  three  shifts  of 
eleven  and  one  overseer.4  Each  group  was  on  guard  one 
evening  in  every  three,  from  an  hour  after  sunset  until  the 
beating  of  the  reveille  the  next  morning.  For  the  payment 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  252,  253.  » Ibid.,  pp.  449,  460. 

lCol.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  148-150.  The  "military  watch"  was  so 
termed  because  it  was  usually  an  augmented  force,  heavily  armed,  and 
called  out  when  an  insurrection  or  an  invasion  threatened.  Assemb. 
Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  809.  Occasionally  both  a  civil  and  a  military  watch  were 
on  guard  at  the  same  time.  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  163. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  43-44. 


323]  KEEPING  THE  PEACE 

of  these  watchmen  and  for  other  local  expenses,  the  pro- 
vincial legislature  permitted  the  corporation  to  raise  a  tax 
-of  £574  I2s. 

This  system  of  a  paid  patrol  continued  until  December 
1742,  when  the  corporation  once  more  returned  to  the  plan 
of  a  citizen  watch.  Serving  on  this  watch  or  securing  a 
•substitute  was  undoubtedly  an  onerous  task  for  the  poorer 
New  Yorkers,  and  we  hear  them  complain,  in  1747,  that 
"  Many  of  the  Inhabitants  of  this  City  have  three  or  four 
Sons  And  as  Many  Servants  and  Apprentices  and  all  those 
with  themselves  Are  Obliged  to  Watch  in  their  Turns  which 
falls  out  or  happens  About  Once  in  Every  four  or  five 
Weeks  the  plain  Consequence  Whereof  is  the  Loss  of  fforty 
Shillings  and  Sometimes  More  to  Every  Such  Inhabitant."  1 
Therefore  the  common  council  petitioned  the  governor  to 
relieve  the  corporation  of  the  military  watch  and  urged  that 
one  of  the  independent  companies  of  soldiers  be  ordered 
•down  from  Albany  to  protect  New  York.  Not  very  long 
thereafter,  the  readers  of  the  Post-Boy  were  overjoyed  to 
read  the  welcome  announcement  that  a  company  of  fusileers 
had  arrived  from  Albany.2 

The  plan  of  a  military  watch,  however,  appears  to  have 
continued  in  operation  for  a  number  of  years  while  the 
struggle  against  Spain  and  France  was  in  progress.  True, 
a  supplementary  citizens'  watch  of  seven  men  was  ordered 
in  addition  to  the  military  watch,  and  several  constables  were 
regularly  paid  for  night  duty,  but  no  provision  was  made 
by  the  corporation  for  ordinary  watchmen.3  With  the  in- 
crease in  the  city's  population,  this  system  probably  became 
very  unsatisfactory.  It  was  a  difficult  task  for  constables 
to  keep  accurate  account  of  persons  detailed  for  duty,  and 
also  it  was  a  hardship  for  inhabitants  of  limited  means  to 

*Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  196.  *  Post-Boy,  Oct.  5,  1747. 

3  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  163. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [324 

spend  either  their  time  in  serving  personally  on  the  watch  or 
their  money  in  securing  a  substitute.  People  of  the  better 
class  naturally  were  not  inclined  to  act  as  night  guards,  but 
preferred  to  hire  others  for  this  unpleasant  work.  Conse- 
quently, the  personnel  of  the  watch  was  not  high.  In  fact, 
it  was  characterized  as  a  "  Parcel  of  idle,  drunken,  vigilant 
Snorers,  who  never  quelled  any  nocturnal  Tumult  in  their 
lives;  but  would,  perhaps,  be  as  ready  to  join  in  a  Burglary 
as  any  Thief  in  Christendom."  1 

The  common  council  returned  to  the  system  of  a  paid 
standing  force  in  January  1762,  and  advertised  for  the  ser- 
vices of  several  able-bodied  persons  as  watchmen.2  The  new 
watch  was  under  the  direction  of  an  overseer — this  officer 
having  taken  the  place  of  the  former  supervisor.  One 
Isaac  Stoutenburgh,  who  had  served  as  overseer  since  1743, 
was  appointed  to  this  position.3 

Along  with  instituting  a  regular  force,  another  important 
step  in  the  interest  of  public  safety  was  taken  when  a  sys- 
tem of  street  lighting  was  ordered  by  the  common  council. 
This  was  in  November  1761.  Before  that  date  the  only 
ordinance  dealing  with  this  subject  was  one  passed  as  far 
back  as  December  1697,  which  required  that  the  occupant: 
of  "  Every  Seaventh  house  ...  in  the  Darke  time  of  the 
Moon  .  .  .  [should]  Cause  A  Lanthorne  &  Candle  to  be 
hung  out  on  a  Pole  Every  Night."  4  In  time  many  citizens 
voluntarily  suspended  large  lamps  before  their  residences 
and  shops  in  order  that  passers-by  might  detect  any  night 
prowlers  trying  to  enter  houses.  But  as  these  lights  were 
not  under  the  protection  of  the  municipal  authorities,  mis- 
chievous persons  delighted  in  breaking  or  otherwise  molest- 
ing them.15  We  read  in  one  account  that  "  several  of  the 

1  Gazette,  Feb.  21,  1757.  2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  278-279. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  loo.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  23. 

6  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  p.  855. 


325]  KEEPING  THE  PEACE  I2$ 

Glass-Lamps  put  up  about  this  City,  were  taken  down  by 
persons  unknown,  and  left  whole  in  the  Meal-Market  alto- 
gether. It  is  thought  to  be  done  by  some  daring  Rakes,  in 
order  to  convince  the  Owners,  how  easy  those  Lamps  might 
be  demolished  without  Discovery."  * 

The  first  small  beginning  in  the  matter  of  illuminating 
streets  at  public  expense  was  made  in  1752,  when  the  cor- 
poration ordered  the  purchase  and  erection  of  three  lamps 
for  lighting  the  entrances  to  the  City  Hall.2  No  system 
of  general  street  illumination  was  attempted  by  the  muni- 
cipality until  1761,  when  application  was  made  to  the  as- 
sembly for  the  privilege  to  levy  a  tax  for  the  purchase  of 
necessary  supplies.3  Permission  was  granted,  and  the  lamps, 
a  number  of  posts,  and  several  barrels  of  oil  were  secured, 
and  lamplighters  were  hired.4 

After  a  committee  of  the  common  council  had  directed 
the  locating  and  setting  of  the  posts,  the  general  care  of  the 
new  street  lamps  was  assigned  to  Isaac  Stoutenburgh,  over- 
seer of  the  watch.  He  paid  the  lamplighters,  purchased  new 
lamps,  wicks,  oil,  and  other  sundries.  Stoutenburgh's 
method  of  settling  accounts  was  very  loose,  for  he  sub- 
mitted his  bills  for  expenditures  at  very  irregular  intervals. 
Owing  to  this  fact  the  common  council  finally  made  the 
overseer  enter  into  a  fixed  contract  to  "  undertake  the  Charge 
and  expence  of  the  said  Lamps  for  one  Year,"  at  an  allow- 
ance of  £760  "  for  providing  a  sufficient  quantity  of  Oyl 
for  Lighting  the  said  Lamps,  paying  the  Lamp  Lighters  their 
wages,  and  furnishing  them  with  Lamp  wick  and  Candles, 
including  his  Trouble."  5 

1  Post-Boy,  Feb.  3,  1752.  W.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  358. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  276. 

4  Col  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  573-576 ;  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  334,  343. 
6  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  211-212. 


I26       HEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [326 

Despite  large  sums  spent  for  the  support  of  the  lighting 
system,  it  was  far  from  satisfactory,  as  the  following  com- 
plaint shows :  "  In  the  most  dark  and  Stormy  Nights,  when 
Lamps  are  most  Necessary,  they  are  the  latest  and  worst 
lighted,  and  sometimes  not  at  all  and  particularly  last  Wed- 
nesday Night,  when  there  was  hardly  any  passing  without 
Light,  and  there  was  scarce  any  Lamp  lighted  in  the  city."  1 
Again,  in  answer  to  the  query  of  a  citizen  as  to  "  Why  the 
public  Lamps  in  this  City  have  not  been  lighted  for  three 
Months  past,"  the  corporation  pleaded  that  it  was  impos- 
sible to  secure  oil.2 

The  same  provincial  act  which  made  provision  for  the 
lighting  system  included  also  an  appropriation  for  a  per- 
manent force  of  watchmen.  For  the  support  of  a  system  of 
street  lighting  and  watching,  between  1761  and  1775,  the 
general  assembly  permitted  the  corporation  to  raise  sums 
varying  from  £1,400  to  £2,000  annually.3  Out  of  these^ 
levies  the  common  council  hired  persons  for  the  task  of 
guarding  the  city  and  of  cleaning,  lighting,  and  extin- 
guishing the  lamps.  The  board,  in  1774,  employed  sixteen 
regular  watchmen  at  a  salary  of  £32  per  annum  to  be  on 
duty  every  night,  and  eight  others  at  £16  for  service  on- 
alternate  nights.4  Up  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution  no  im- 
portant changes  were  made  in  the  organization  of  the  watch. 
Isaac  Stoutenburgh  was  continued  as  overseer  until  his  death 
in  1771,  when  he  was  succeeded  by  his  brother  Jacobus. 
The  new  overseer  was  given  the  services  of  an  assistant,  one- 
Daniel  Revaux,  who  was  appointed  captain  of  the  watch. 
Thus  after  experiments  with  citizen  guards  and  temporary 
watchers,  the  corporation  finally  established  a  paid  force, 
fully  organized  with  an  overseer,  captain,  constables,  and 
watchmen. 

1  Mercury,  Feb.  7,  1763.  *  Journal,  Oct.  8,  15,  1772.. 

*Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  573,  671,  970;  vol.  v,  pp.  720-722. 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  15-16. 


327]  KEEPING  THE  PEACE 

After  thus  examining  the  city's  police  organization,  we 
find  that  it  was  generally  inadequate  to  meet  serious  disturb- 
ances. When  such  occasions  arose  the  common  council  had 
three  means  of  supplementing  the  regular  force.  In  the  first 
place,  a  double  watch  might  be  ordered  to  deal  with  such 
minor  disorders  as  were  caused  by  riotous  celebrations  on 
Christmas  and  on  New  Year's  Eve.1  Ushering  in  the  new 
year  with  a  boisterous  welcome  is  by  no  means  a  modern 
custom,  for  even  in  the  colonial  period  we  learn  that  "  great 
Damages  are  frequently  done  on  the  Eve  of  the  last  Day  of 
December,  and  on  the  first  and  second  Days  of  January  by' 
Persons  going  from  House  to  House  with  Guns  and  other 
Fire  Arms,  and  being  often  intoxicated  with  Liquor."  2 
Second,  the  watch  might  be  reenf  orced  by  the  city  militia,  as 
was  done  in  order  to  suppress  the  riot  resulting  from  an 
attack  by  a  party  of  British  soldiers  upon  the  "  New  Gaol." 
The  third  means  of  strengthening  the  regular  police  was  to 
call  upon  the  garrison  for  aid.  Thus,  on  one  occasion, 
Lieutenant  Governor  Golden  was  notified  that  an  attempt 
might  be  made  to  rescue  two  condemned  criminals,  John 
Higgins  and  John  Anderson,  for  whom  there  was  strong 
public  sympathy.3  Thereupon  Golden  ordered  the  Earl  of 
Stirling,  commander  of  the  grenadiers  stationed  in  the 
city,  to  place  his  men  at  the  disposal  of  the  civil  authorities. 
The  rights  of  the  municipal  officers  were  carefully  respected 
by  Golden,  for  we  find  him  instructing  the  commanders  of 
military  forces  to  have  "  the  strictest  Regard  herein  to  such 
orders  as  you  shall  receive  from  the  Civil  Magistrate  at- 
tending for  the  Conservation  of  Peace."  The  show  of 
military  force  apparently  overawed  all  would-be  rescuers, 
for  both  Higgins  and  Anderson  were  executed.4 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  141. 

2  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  532-533,  March  8,  1773. 
Golden,  Letter  Book,  vol.  i,  pp.  165-166.        4  Mercury,  Feb.  22,  1762. 


CHAPTER  VI 

FIRE  PROTECTION 

THE  growth  of  urban  population  during  the  past  two 
centuries  has  rendered  the  problems  of  fire  prevention 
and  fire  extinguishing  increasingly  difficult.  For  the 
prevention  of  fire,  municipal  authorities  have  enacted  or- 
dinances regulating  the  storing  of  combustibles,  and 
prescribing  materials  for  building  construction.  For 
the  extinguishing  of  fire,  local  governments  have  pro- 
vided fire  organizations,  pumping  engines  and  water- 
supply  systems. 

Before  describing  the  methods  used  in  colonial  New 
York,  it  is  well  to  consider  the  fire  hazards  which  then 
existed  in  the  city.  One  serious  menace  came  from  the 
storing  of  highly  inflammable  materials  in  the  more 
densely  populated  wards.  Large  quantities  of  hay  and 
of  straw  were  always  to  be  found  in  stables  and  in 
the  military  barracks.  The  traffic  in  naval  stores  also 
tended  to  increase  fire  risks.  Such  combustibles  as 
pitch,  tar,  resin  and  turpentine  were  being  constantly 
sent  from  the  northern  forests  to  New  York  city,  there 
to  await  shipment  to  England.1  Gunpowder  was  often 
carelessly  stored  in  various  parts  of  the  town.  The 
danger  arising  from  this  practice  was  better  appreciated 
after  a  fire  which  occurred  in  January  1772,  when  a 
building  containing  quantities  of  this  material  narrowly 

1  Petition,  dated  Nov.  1755,  for  liberty  to  build  a  storehouse  for  naval 
stores,  in  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 

128  [328 


329]  FIRE  PROTECTION 

escaped  catching  fire  from  an  adjoining  structure.1  The 
lives  of  hundreds  of  spectators  were  thus  endangered. 

The  fire  hazard  arising  from  the  storing  of  combusti- 
bles was  intensified  by  congestion  of  buildings  on  the 
lower  part  of  Manhattan  Island.  The  size  of  the  city 
may  be  judged  from  the  statement  that  in  1749  it  in- 
cluded 1834  structures  of  which  over  1700  were  located 
below  the  present  Duane  Street.2  Not  only  did  the  city, 
early  in  its  history,  earn  the  reputation  of  being  a  con- 
gested community,  but  it  was  also  known  for  its  high 
buildings.  Peter  Kalm  noted  that  most  houses  were 
several  stories  high.3  This  in  itself  was  regarded  as  a 
fire  menace.  The  same  applied  to  several  tall  church 
steeples,  which  were  considered  sources  of  danger  in 
case  of  fire.  When  Trinity  Church,  for  example,  caught 
fire,  the  engines  were  unable  to  pump  water  to  the  roof 
of  the  edifice,  to  say  nothing  of  the  spire.4 

Improvements  in  building  material  tended  to  minimize 
the  danger  from  fire.  In  the  construction  of  buildings, 
stone  and  brick  in  time  came  to  replace  wood.  Several 
wooden  buildings,  including  a  few  mills,  were  destroyed 
in  1737  by  a  fire  which  broke  out  in  the  house  of  John 
Roosevelt.5  Because  of  the  frequency  of  fires,  fewer 
wooden  structures  were  erected.  By  1750,  according  to 
notes  of  Kalm,  most  of  the  houses  were  being  con- 
structed of  brick.6  The  same  writer,  however,  observed 
that  the  roofs  were  usually  made  of  white  fir  or  cedar 

1  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1772. 

*  Manuscript  written  in  copy  of  Laws,  Statutes,  etc.,  of  City  of  New 
York,  in  N.  Y.  Pub.  Library. 

8 Kalm,  Travels  into  North  America,  vol.  i,  p.  249. 

*  Gazette,  Feb.  26,  1750.  5  Journal,  Jan.  10,  1737. 

*  Kalm,  op.  fit.,  p.  249. 


-V£W  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [330 

shingles.  When  thoroughly  dried  through  daily  expo- 
sure to  the  sun,  these  frequently  caught  fire  from  sparks 
blown  from  fires  nearby.1 

Such  were  the  fire  hazards  which  perplexed  both 
common  council  and  provincial  legislature,  and  led  to 
the  passing  of  acts  relating  to  the  storage  of  hay,  straw, 
naval  supplies  and  gunpowder,  and  to  the  regulating  of 
materials  used  in  building.  After  several  fires  caused 
by  the  ignition  of  hay  racks,  the  common  council  passed 
a  by-law  regulating  the  storage  of  hay  and  straw.2 
Hereafter,  no  one  was  permitted  to  pile  such  materials 
in  barracks,  yards  or  gardens,  but  instead  people  were 
required  to  place  them  in  closed  buildings  and  away 
from  any  chimney,  hearth  or  fireplace. 

To  reduce  the  number  of  fires  caused  by  defective  or 
dirty  chimneys,  the  alderman  and  assistant  of  each  ward 
appointed  two  chimney  viewers  who  monthly  inspected 
hearths  within  their  district.3  If,  after  being  notified, 
an  inhabitant  failed  to  do  the  necessary  sweeping,  he 
was  fined  33 ;  and  if  his  chimney  caught  fire  from  such 
neglect  he  was  compelled  to  pay  403.  This  system  of 
official  inspectors  or  viewers  apparently  worked  no  better 
now  than  in  the  days  of  Dutch  rule.  The  position  was 
not  eagerly  sought  after,  especially  since  the  inspector 
was  fined  6s  for  each  failure  to  perform  his  duty.  There- 
fore, to  keep  the  office  filled,  the  common  council  laid 
a  fine  of  403.  upon  anyone  refusing  appointment. 

Occasionally  judicial  notice  was  taken  of  offenses 
against  the  chimney-sweeping  ordinance.  In  February 
1766,  the  grand  jury  found  a  true  bill  against  one  Peter 

1  Post-Boy,  Sept.  II,  Oct.  2,  1749. 
*M.  C.  C.t  vol.  vi,  p.  116. 
'Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  82. 


331]  FIRE  PROTECTION 

Mesier  for  having  a  chimney  so  small  and  so  dirty  that 
it  often  caught  fire.1  The  chimney  was  considered  to  be 
a  public  nuisance  and  was  ordered  removed.  However, 
violations  such  as  those  cited  above  were  seldom  pun- 
ished, and  fires  caused  by  unswept  chimneys  continued 
to  occur.  To  remedy  this  dangerous  condition,  the 
common  council  appointed  a  collector  of  fines,  and  em- 
powered him  to  bring  suit  in  his  own  name  against 
offenders.  Hearings  in  such  cases  were  held  before  the 
mayor,  recorder,  or  any  one  of  the  aldermen,  and  fines 
which  they  imposed  were  applied  to  the  purchase  of  sup- 
plies for  the  municipal  fire  department.3  This  ordinance 
was  still  in  force  in  1773  when  the  common  council 
appointed  a  new  collector.3 

The  province,  also,  enacted  legislation  regarding  fire 
prevention.  It  ordered  pitch,  resin,  and  turpentine 
transferred  to  a  storehouse  established  by  the  corpora- 
tion.4 In  1761,  the  provincial  legislature  passed  an  act 
which  aroused  strong  opposition  in  New  York  city. 
This  statute  ordered  all  new  buildings  erected  south  of 
Fresh  Water  Pond  after  January  i,  1766,  to  be  con- 
structed of  stone  or  of  brick,  and  roofed  with  slate  or 
with  tile.s  The  same  roofing  materials  were  to  be  used 
in  repairing  old  houses.  There  was  only  slight  objection 
to  the  clause  of  the  act  requiring  brick  or  stone,  as  these 
were  already  in  common  use,  but  vigorous  protest  was 
made  against  the  order  calling  for  tile  or  slate  roofs.6 
New  York  citizens  succeeded  in  having  the  operation  of 

1  Filed  papers,  city  ckrk's  office.  See  also  Minutes  of  General  Ses- 
sions, Feb.  9,  1744,  Feb.  3,  1748. 
JAf.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  330-331.  *Ibid.,  p.  409. 

4  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  p.  573.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  571-573- 

6  Manual  (1850),  pp.  427-428. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [332 

the  act  postponed  until  1775,  when  the  legislature  passed 
it  again,  together  with  several  amendments.1  In  a  vain 
effort  to  defeat  the  bill  about  3000  owners  of  property 
in  the  city  presented  Governor  William  Tryon  with  a 
petition  setting  forth  the  difficulty  of  securing  slate  or 
tile.  The  outbreak  of  hostilities  in  the  following  year 
effectively  checked  the  operation  of  the  law. 

An  important  step  in  improving  means  of  extinguish- 
ing fires  was  taken  by  the  common  council  in  May  1731, 
when  it  ordered  its  first  fire  engines  from  England.  To 
pay  for  the  purchase  and  shipment  of  these,  the  provincial 
legislature  authorized  the  corporation  to  raise  the  money 
through  a  direct  property  tax  on  the  estates  of  the  city's 
inhabitants.*  Provided  in  this  manner  with  the  neces- 
sary funds,  a  committee  of  the  common  council  nego- 
tiated with  two  merchants  for  the  purchase  of  "Mr. 
Newshams  New  Invention  of  the  fourth  and  sixth  Sizes 
with  suctions,  Leathern  Pipes  and  Caps  and  Other  Ma- 
terialls."3  Before  the  close  of  the  year,  the  city's  first 
fire  engines  had  arrived  from  London  on  the  ship 
"Beaver"  and  were  housed  in  a  room  of  the  City  Hall.4 
The  engine  of  that  day  was  an  oblong  affair  and  rather 
small.'  It  was  placed  on  heavy  metal  wheels  and  drawn 
by  hand.  Water  was  poured  into  the  forward  end  by 
the  bucket  men,  and  on  each  side  several  men  worked  a 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  869,  1046-1048;  v,  pp.  743-746. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  645-648. 

8  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  55,  56.  The  origin  of  the  city's  fire  department 
is  described  in  Sheldon,  The  Story  of  the  Volunteer  Fire  Depart- 
ment of  the  City  of  New  York  (N.  Y.,  1882) ;  also  Costello,  Our  Fre- 
tnen  (N.  Y.  1888),  pp.  23-37. 

4  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  122. 

6  One  of  those  early  fire  engines  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Volunteer 
Firemen's  Association  of  New  York  city. 


333]  FIRE  PROTECTION 

handle  which  generated  force  sufficient  to  drive  the  water 
through  a  large  pipe,  by  means  of  which  the  stream  was 
played  on  the  burning  building. 

In  time  additional  engines  were  secured.  In  June 
1741,  John  Moore  was  given  £100  sterling  with  which 
to  buy  "  as  Large  a  fire  Engine  of  the  best  make  As 
that  Sum "  would  purchase.1  Moore  in  turn  commis- 
sioned Baker  Brothers  to  make  the  purchase.  They 
struck  a  better  bargain  than  was  anticipated,  having 
been  able  to  secure  two  engines  for  the  allotted  sum.3 
In  1749  and  again  in  1758  the  common  council  bought 
additional  fire  apparatus.3  These  were  apparently  the 
last  ordered  from  abroad.  For  a  number  of  years  sev- 
eral inhabitants  of  the  city  had  been  busying  themselves 
with  models  of  fire  engines,  for  as  early  as  1736  Jacobus 
Turk,  a  gunsmith,  was  given  £10  by  the  corporation 
"to  Enable  him  to  go  on  with  finishing  A  small  fire 
Engine  he  is  making  for  an  Expiriment."  4  But  it  was 
not  until  after  the  Stamp  Act  troubles,  when  home  man- 
ufactures were  being  studiously  encouraged,  that  the  first 
engine  made  in  the  colony  was  accepted  by  the  common 
council.  In  1772  a  large  engine  was  purchased  from 
Captain  Thomas  Tiller,  and  another  from  one  David 
Hunt,  for  £90.5  A  year  later  the  corporation  paid 
George  Stanton  for  his  services  in  constructing  a  fire 
engine  for  the  West  Ward. 

When  the  corporation  could  boast  of  but  two  fire  en- 
gines, the  problem  of  housing  them  was  solved  by  using 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  22.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  54. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  264;  vi,  pp.  137-138.    By  1750  the  city  possessed  six 
engines. — Post-Boy,  Feb.  12,  1750. 

4  M .  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  367. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  366,  377,  463  5  viii,  p.  13. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [334 

a  room  of  the  City  Hall  for  the  purpose.1  Later  a  struc- 
ture contiguous  to  the  watchhouse  on  Broad  Street  was 
built  for  the  new  engines.2  With  the  purchase  of  addi- 
tional engines  the  common  council,  at  very  little  ex- 
pense, ordered  tHe  construction  of  sheds.3  One  build- 
ing of  moderate  size  was  set  up  in  Hanover  Square  to 
accommodate  a  large  engine,  fifty  buckets  and  other  ap- 
paratus.4 The  location  of  these  engine  houses  depended 
upon  the  population  of  the  neighborhood.  At  first 
only  the  thickly-settled  wards  possessed  fire  houses, 
but,  not  long  after,  in  every  ward  a  structure  for  housing 
the  engine,  hose,  buckets,  ladders  and  firemen's  caps 
was  built.  Also,  an  engine  and  fifty  buckets  were  kept 
at  the  workhouse  for  the  protection  of  buildings  such  as 
the  City  Hall,  the  prisons  and  the  barracks.5  Another 
was  stationed  at  the  ferry  in  Brooklyn  to  prevent  the 
occurrence  of  a  fire  similar  to  that  of  1746,  when  the 
corporation  sustained  a  heavy  loss  through  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  ferry  house.6 

Part  of  the  burden  of  caring  for  fire  apparatus  was 
borne  by  the  inhabitants,  who  were  obliged  to  keep  a 
certain  number  of  fire  buckets  in  their  houses.7  A  pri- 
vate householder  was  required  to  have  one  or  two,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  fire  places  in  his  house ;  a  baker, 
three;  and  a  brewer,  six.  Tenants  were  expected  to 
procure  the  pails  at  the  expense  of  the  landlord.  After 
a  fire,  buckets  which  had  been  in  use  were  to  be  returned 
to  their  rightful  owners,  or,  if  not  properly  labeled,  were 
to  be  delivered  to  the  marshal  at  the  City  Hall.  For 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  122.  *  Ibid.,  p.  319. 

tlbid.,  vol.  v,  p.  255;  vi,  p.  6.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  288,  300,  317. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  122.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  3. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  82-83. 


335]  FIRE  PROTECTION 

withholding  a  bucket,  a  fine  of  los  was  imposed.  In 
time  the  city  provided  each  ward  with  a  considerable 
number  of  pails  labeled  in  such  manner  that  they  could 
easily  be  identified  as  municipal  property.1 

The  fire  engines  were  cared  for  and  repaired  by 
an  overseer.  After  the  creation  of  this  position  in  1733, 
the  first  to  hold  it  was  Anthony  Lamb,  who  received  for 
this  service  £3  quarterly.2  In  1736  Lamb  was  succeeded 
by  Jacobus  Turk,  who  agreed  to  clean  and  repair  the 
engines  at  an  annual  salary  of  £10,  all  material  for  repair- 
ing to  be  purchased  at  the  expense  of  the  corporation.3 
As  the  number  of  engines  increased,  Turk's  salary  like- 
wise rose,  first  to  £16,  and  later  to  £24.*  Turk  continued 
in  this  capacity  until  1761,  when  he  was  succeeded  by 
Jacobus  Stoutenburgh.5  The  new  incumbent,  like  his 
predecessor,  was  a  gunsmith  and  so  had  mechanical  ex- 
perience. The  duties  of  the  two  overseers  who  pre- 
ceded Stoutenburgh,  had  been  comparatively  slight,  but 
in  his  time  the  position  assumed  considerable  importance. 
Accordingly,  Stoutenburgh  became  known  as  "fire-en- 
gineer," and  his  salary  was  raised. 

An  organized  force  of  firemen  for  New  York  city  was 
first  authorized  in  1737,  when,  upon  the  petition  of  the 
common  council,  the  provincial  legislature  passed  an 
act  empowering  the  corporation  to  appoint  a  number  of 
"  Strong  able  Discreet  honest  and  Sober  Men  ...  to 
have  the  Care  management  working  and  useing  the  said 
ffire  Engines  and  the  other  Tools  and  Instruments  for 
Extinguishing  of  ffires."6  The  ward  was  used  as  a  basis 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  264.  a  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  175. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  367.          'Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  55,  454.          */&«/.,  vol.  vi,  p.  255. 

6  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  1064-1067.  See  also  manuscript  entitled  "  In- 
cidents in  the  History  of  the  Volunteer  Fire  Department  in  the  City  of 
New  York,"  in  Library  of  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [336 

for  grouping  the  firemen  in  squads.  Under  this  act,, 
thirty  were  appointed  in  September  1738,  making  five 
for  each  ward,  except  the  Out  Ward,  which  had  no  fire 
company  until  1772."  With  the  purchase  of  new  fire 
engines  in  1741,  fourteen  additional  firemen  were  chosen, 
thus  permitting  about  seven  for  each  of  the  six  wards.2 
The  number  was  increased  by  subsequent  acts  of  the 
legislature;  so  by  1772  the  city  was  protected  by  a  force 
of  163  members,  divided  into  eleven  companies,  each 
commanded  by  a  foreman.3  The  whole  department  was 
under  the  administration  of  Stoutenburgh,  the  fire  chief, 
assisted  by  three  engineers. 

Along  with  the  power  of  appointing  firemen,  the  com- 
mon council  also  possessed  the  right  to  discharge  them, 
and  frequently  exercised  this  power.  Such  action  was 
taken  against  John  Dunscomb  for  "  Contemptuously  re- 
fusing to  do  his  duty  in  attending  the  fire  which  hap- 
pened Last  thursday  .  .  .  after  he  was  Ordered  so  to  do 
by  some  of  the  Magistrates."4  Again,  Benjamin  Ogden 
was  removed  by  the  common  council,  in  response  to 
a  petition  of  the  members  of  St.  George's  Square  fire 
company,  on  the  ground  that  his  conduct  was  objection- 
able to  his  fellow  firemen.5 

The  duties  of  the  municipal  firemen  were  similar  to 
those  of  rural  volunteers  of  the  present  day.  At  the 
ringing  of  the  alarm  bell  at  the  City  Hall,  the  men  ran 
to  the  fire  houses,  hauled  the  engines  to  the  fire  and 
operated  them  under  the  direction  of  the  city  magi- 
strates, the  high  sheriff  or  the  overseer.6  Provision  was 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  436-438;  vii,  p.  387. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  43.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  385-387. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  215.  6Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  438. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  438-440. 


337]  FIRE  PROTECTION 

also  made  by  the  Common  Council  for  having  fire  drills 
"for  preserving  the  Said  fire  Engines  from  decay." 
Absence  from  duty  without  reasonable  cause  was  pun- 
ished by  a  fine  of  I2S  for  every  fire,  and  6s  for  every 
drill.  The  city  gave  persons  no  pay  for  fire  duty,  except 
when  they  performed  exceptionally  daring  acts.  For 
example,  on  a  cold,  windy  day  in  January  1747,  the  City 
Hall  caught  fire,  and,  according  to  an  account  in  the 
Post-Boy,  Francis  Dawson  opened  the  roof  with  an  axe, 
directly  over  the  fire.1  The  engines  at  the  same  time 
played  water  upon  him,  so  that  by  the  time  the  fire  was 
out  he  was  clothed  with  ice.  For  this  work  the  common 
council  voted  Dawson  £7,  and  presented  him  with  the 
freedom  of  the  city.2 

Though  serving  without  remuneration,  firemen  de- 
rived advantage  through  exemption  from  certain  civic 
responsibilities.  They  were  relieved  from  duty  as  con- 
stables, surveyors  of  highways,  and  jurymen,  and  could 
be  summoned  for  military  service  only  in  time  of  extreme 
public  danger. 

Water  for  extinguishing  fires  was  drawn  mainly  from 
town  wells.  For  a  long  time  buckets  fastened  on  ropes 
or  suspended  from  balance  poles  were  used ;  but  as  early 
as  1741,  pumps  were  ordered  for  the  city.3  Originally 
wells  were  six  feet  in  diameter,  but  those  made  in  later 
years  were  usually  eight  feet  wide.4  Wells  might  be 
constructed  only  after  application  to  the  common  coun- 
cil. This  step  would  be  taken  by  residents  on  a  street, 
by  having  their  alderman  present  a  petition  to  the  com- 
mon council.  This  body  usually  allowed  £8  for  each 

1  Post-Boy,  Jan.  19,  1747.  2  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  190. 

lCol.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  181-184;  Manual  (1862),  pp.  554-555- 
*M.  C.  C.,  op.  cit.  vol.  v,  p.  445. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [338 

new  well,  although  larger  contributions  are  mentioned  in 
the  minutes.  The  remainder  of  the  expense  was  borne 
by  the  inhabitants  using  the  well;  and,  as  the  building 
of  one  was  a  costly  undertaking,  this  was  by  far  the 
larger  part. 

The  repair  of  the  town  wells  was  regulated  by  several 
provincial  acts.  The  first  of  these,  passed  in  1741,  placed 
the  maintenance  of  wells  in  the  hands  of  the  alderman 
and  assistant  of  each  ward.1  They  were  authorized  to 
install  pumps  wherever  it  was  deemed  necessary,  to  des- 
ignate the  number  of  residents  for  each  well,  and  to 
assign  an  overseer  in  each  district  having  a  well.  All 
repairs  were  paid  by  the  overseers  who  submitted  their 
accounts  to  the  aldermen  of  their  respective  wards.  All 
expenditures  were  met  by  the  inhabitants  of  each  neigh- 
borhood in  the  form  of  a  special  property  tax  collected 
by  the  overseer,  who  was  allowed  is  for  every  pound  he 
collected.  Malicious  practices,  such  as  cutting  well 
ropes  and  breaking  pump  handles,  were  dealt  with  in 
the  same  act,  a  fine  of  405  being  imposed  for  each 
offense.  In  1753  another  act  of  the  legislature  altered 
this  plan.2  According  to  the  new  law,  instead  of  each 
alderman  appointing  overseers  for  his  own  ward,  the 
common  council  annually  nominated  all  of  them.  Be- 
sides being  empowered  to  examine,  clean  and  repair 
wells,  each  overseer  was  instructed  to  compensate  any- 
one whose  leather  buckets  were  burnt,  lost  or  destroyed 
in  the  course  of  a  fire.  To  meet  these  expenses,  an  an- 
nual tax  was  added  to  the  poor  rate.  This  at  first  was 
limited  to  £120,  but  by  later  statute  £200  was  allowed.3 

It  was  quite  difficult  to  secure  good  drinking  water 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  181-184,  400.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  942-947. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  944-945. 


339]  FIRE  PROTECTION 

in  the  city.  As  the  shore  along  the  East  River  was  low, 
brine  penetrated  underground  and  swamps  were  often 
formed,  thus  rendering  the  water  very  brackish.1  Drink- 
ing water  was  available  either  from  town  wells  or  from 
private  pumps  ;  but,  writes  Peter  Kalm,  only  "  those  who 
are  less  delicate  in  this  point  make  use  of  the  water 
from  the  wells  in  town."2  Private  pumps  therefore  were 
essential  in  order  to  secure  good  water,  and  the  privilege 
of  using  them  generally  went  with  the  sale  of  property, 
as  is  shown  by  an  advertisement  offering  for  sale  a  house 
of  "  two  Tenements,  and  the  Half  the  right  of  a  Pump 
in  the  Yard."3 

Toward  the  end  of  the  colonial  period,  the  common 
council  conceived  an  ambitious  plan  for  supplying  water. 
A  reservoir  with  a  pumping  plant  and  a  conduit  system 
was  proposed  capable  of  carrying  a  sufficient  quantity  of 
good  water  through  the  streets.  In  July  1774,  Augus- 
tus and  Frederick  Van  Cortlandt  offered  the  corporation 
for  this  purpose  their  property  on  Great  George  Street, 
now  Broadway  above  Chambers  Street,  at  £600  per  acre.4 
The  common  council  agreed  to  purchase  the  northerly 
part  at  this  price,  "  provided  that  upon  Sinking  a  Well 
there,  the  Water  shall  be  found  of  a  good  Quality."5  As 
investigation  indicated  that  the  water  was  satisfactory, 
the  corporation  paid  £1050  for  the  land.  The  work  of 
excavation  was  promptly  begun  under  the  direction  of 
a  committee  of  the  common  council  and  an  engineer 
named  Christopher  Colles.  He  was  to  receive  £10  a 

1  American  Medical  and  Philosophical  Register,  vol.  i,  p.  308. 

2  Kalm,  op.  cit.,  p.  252. 

3  Post-Boy,  Nov.  30,  1747. 

4  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  p.  40.     See  also,  Wegman,  Water-Supply  of  the 
City  of  New  York  (N.  Y.,  1896),  pp.  4-5. 
*  M.  C.  C.t  vol.  viii,  pp.  43. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [-540 

month  for  superintending  the  actual  construction,  while 
the  committee  of  the  common  council  was  to  make 
contracts,  purchase  materials  and  audit  accounts.  After 
the  Revolution,  Colles  claimed  that  he  had  not  received 
the  sum  of  £450  which  was  due  him  for  his  services  and 
for  money  advanced  by  him.1 

In  time,  a  spacious  reservoir  with  a  capacity  of  20,000 
hogsheads  was  erected  at  what  is  now  the  east  side  of 
Broadway,  between  Pearl  and  White  Streets.2  It  was 
completely  covered,  for  it  was  then  believed  that  the  rays 
of  the  sun  had  an  injurious  effect  upon  drinking  water. 

Having  constructed  a  storage  reservoir,  it  was  then 
necessary  to  provide  for  a  steady  supply  of  water  and 
for  a  suitable  means  of  distributing  it.  The  first  prob- 
lem was  solved  by  digging  a  well  thirty  feet  in  diameter 
near  the  Collect  Pond,  where  the  "  Tombs  "  now  stands, 
between  the  present  Pearl  and  White  Streets.  From 
this  well,  water  was  pumped  into  the  reservoir  by  a  steam 
engine  which  had  the  power  of  raising  two  hundred  gal- 
lons, fifty-two  feet  per  minute.  The  cylinder  for  this 
engine  was  cast  in  a  local  shop  and  was  said  to  have 
been  the  first  of  its  kind  ever  attempted  in  America.3 
This  was  indeed  an  indication  that  England's  plan  to 
suppress  the  metal  industry  in  the  colonies  was  doomed 
to  failure. 

It  was  planned  to  distribute  the  water  through  hollow 
logs  laid  through  about  fourteen  miles  of  the  principal 
streets.  It  was  also  intended  to  construct  these  pipes 
so  as  to  offer  quick  communication  with  the  fire  engines, 
and  to  furnish  a  speedy  and  plentiful  supply  of  water  when- 

1  Petition  of  Colles  in  filed  papers,  city  clerk's  office. 

1  Manual  (1856),  p.  432. 

8  Gazette,  Feb.  20,  1775;  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.,  vol.  xiv,  p.  315. 


34 1  ]  FIRE  PROTECTION 

ever  the  need  might  arise.1  It  appears  that  these  water 
works,  including  the  reservoir  and  the  pumping  system, 
were  completed,  for  we  learn  that  they  were  placed  under 
the  care  of  Christopher  Colles.  But,  owing  to  the  out- 
break of  the  Revolution,  the  conduit  system  was  not 
built.  The  corporation,  however,  expended  £1250  for 
over  70,000  feet  of  pitch  pine  timber,  which  was  ordered 
shipped  from  Albany  County.2 

We  see  from  this  survey  that  the  city  was  compelled 
to  enter  upon  extensive  projects  in  order  to  supply  water 
both  for  extinguishing  fires  and  for  drinking  purposes. 
It  is  probably  fair  to  assume  that  the  citizens  at  the  time 
of  the  Revolution  were  drinking  reasonably  pure  water. 
The  provisions  for  safeguarding  against  fires  proved  gen- 
erally adequate.  In  1741  a  serious  fire  destroyed  the 
buildings  of  the  provincial  government,  and  the  depart- 
ment was  given  a  chance  to  show  its  ability  to  deal  with 
a  large  conflagration.  Aside  from  this,  there  was  no 
menacing  outbreak  until  1776.  In  that  year  a  great 
fire  occurred,  but  as  the  civil  government  had  been  dis- 
rupted, owing  to  military  operations,  the  municipal  fire- 
men had  no  opportunity  to  demonstrate  their  ability. 

1  Gazette,  Aug.  i,  1774.  2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  62-63. 


CHAPTER  VII 

REGULATION  OF  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

PREVIOUS  pages  have  shown  the  activities  of  the  mu- 
nicipality of  New  York  in  administering  such  functions 
as  charities  and  correction,  also  its  police  and  its  fire  pro- 
tection. In  the  remainder  of  the  work  the  corporation 
of  New  York  will  be  regarded  generally  as  an  owner  of 
revenue  bearing  property.1  In  this  chapter  an  attempt 
will  be  made  to  explain  such  phases  of  the  municipal 
land  system  as  the  boundaries  of  the  city,  its  riparian 
rights,  its  title  to  the  interior  of  Manhattan  Island,  and 
such  property  improvements  as  docks,  bridges,  roads 
and  parks.2 

The  boundaries  of  New  York  city  and  of  New  York 
County  have  seldom  been  coterminous.  Today  the  ter- 
ritorial extent  of  the  former  is  greater  than  that  of  the 
latter.  In  the  colonial  period,  the  situation  was  just  the 
reverse.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  county  of  New  York 
then  was  more  extensive  than  that  of  the  city.  Accord- 
ing to  an  act  which  the  provincial  legislature  passed  in 
1691,  the  city  and  county  of  New  York  embraced  all  the 
islands  in  the  Hudson  and  the  East  River,  in  addition  ta 
Manhattan.3  The  last  mentioned  alone  was  called  New 
York  city.  Later,  in  1731,  the  Montgomerie  Charter 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  596.    See  also  Britton  vs.  Mayor  of  New  York, 
21  Howard,  pp.  252-253. 

2  For  topographical  details,  see  Stokes,  Iconography  of  Manhattan 
Island,  op.  cit.,  passim. 

8  Hoffman,  Treatise  on  the  Corporation,  p.  79. 

142  [342 


343]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

extended  the  jurisdiction  of  New  York  city,  not  only  to 
embrace  the  surrounding  islands,  but  also  to  include 
certain  rights  on  portions  of  the  shores  opposite  Man- 
hattan.1 Naturally  this  extension  brought  with  it  direct 
relations  with  the  province  of  New  Jersey  on  the  west, 
with  the  county  of  Westchester  on  the  north,  and  with 
that  of  Kings  on  the  east.  The  first,  being  an  inter- 
provincial  matter,  is  foreign  to  our  review  of  municipal 
affairs;  the  second  will  be  discussed  in  relation  to  the 
subject  of  bridges  across  the  Harlem  River;  the  third 
will  be  described  in  the  following  chapter  in  connection 
with  the  establishment  of  the  Brooklyn  ferry. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  internal  divisions  of  New 
York.  In  1731  the  city  was  divided  anew  into  seven 
wards,  the  additional  one  being  named  in  honor  of  Gov- 
ernor Montgomerie.2  The  lower  end  of  Manhattan 
Island  was  known  as  the  South  Ward  and  was  inhabited 
mainly  by  soldiers  and  by  the  officers  of  the  provincial 
government.  Under  British  rule,  it  will  be  remembered, 
the  legislature  held  its  sessions  in  New  York  city,  then 
the  capital  of  the  province.  To  the  east,  embracing  a 
strip  of  shore  along  the  East  River,  was  the  Dock  Ward. 
In  this  district  the  population  included  many  sailors  and 
longshoremen.  The  rest  of  lower  Manhattan  fronting 
on  the  East  River,  directly  above  the  Dock  Ward,  was 
divided  into  the  East  and  the  Montgomerie  Wards. 
William  Street,  running  more  or  less  parallel  to  the 
Hudson  River,  separated  these  two  districts  from  the 
North  Ward.  The  southern  boundary  of  this  section 
was  Wall  Street,  on  which  thoroughfare  stood  several 
buildings  of  the  municipal  government.  Adjoining  the 
North  Ward  and  extending  to  the  Hudson  was  the  West 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  599.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  600602. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [344 

Ward.  Within  this  ward  were  the  king's  farm  and 
other  lands  of  Trinity  Church.  Upper  Manhattan  was 
known  as  the  Out  Ward,  comprising  the  Bowery  and 
Harlem  divisions. 

As  a  result  of  these  definite  ward  divisions,  two  and 
only  two  boundary  controversies  arose.  Both  were  con- 
cerned with  the  limits  of  the  Out  Ward.  In  one  case  a 
rivulet,  running  from  Fresh  Water  Pond  and  emptying 
into  the  East  River,  had  been  the  dividing  line  between 
the  Montgomerie  and  the  Out  Wards.  When  this 
stream  was  filled  up  complications  arose,  but  they  were 
satisfactorily  settled  through  an  act  of  the  legislature 
defining  the  boundary.1 

Far  more  serious  was  the  dispute  between  the  corpor- 
ation of  New  York  and  the  town  of  Harlem.  The  poli- 
tical relations  between  the  communities,  both  located  on 
Manhattan  Island,  are  nowhere  clearly  defined.  It  ap- 
pears that  Harlem,  together  with  the  Bowery  division, 
formed  the  Out  Ward  of  New  York  city.  Although 
both  divisions  were  represented  in  the  common  council 
by  the  same  alderman  and  common  councilman,  each 
had  its  separate  local  tax  collectors,  assessors,  and  con- 
stables. In  addition  Harlem  had  a  board  of  trustees.2 
This  political  arrangement  worked  without  much  friction, 
but  the  same  cannot  be  said  about  the  relations  between 
the  two  localities  regarding  their  boundary  line.  This 
controversy  continued  over  a  long  period  of  time.  In 
1736  a  division  line  was  run.3  With  a  view  to  settling 
their  differences,  the  Harlem  trustees  gave  the  common 
council  the  privilege  of  running  a  partition  line  through 
the  disputed  territory/  After  surveyors  and  chainbearers 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  609-610.  *M.  C.  C.t  vol.  v,  p.  298. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  316.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  280. 


345]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS  145 

had  performed  the  field  work  and  submitted  their  report, 
a  conference  of  the  two  official  bodies  was  held,  in  an 
effort  to  settle  their  difficulties  without  resort  to  the 
courts.  Then  followed  wearisome  negotiations,  covering 
a  period  of  over  twelve  months.  Even  this  prolonged 
parleying  was  apparently  fruitless,  for  both  sides  pre- 
pared to  enter  into  litigation.1  The  New  York  corpora- 
tion entrusted  the  defense  of  its  title  to  Messrs.  Abraham 
Lodge  and  Joseph  Murray,  the  latter  of  whom  was  long 
the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  New  York  bar.  Before 
the  case  could  come  to  court,  the  Harlem  trustees  offered 
to  reopen  private  negotiations.  This  proposal  was  ac- 
ceptable to  the  corporation,  and  an  interchange  of  views 
on  the  boundary  issues  again  ensued.  For  fully  twenty 
years  longer  this  contest  continued.  Yet  it  was  not 
without  advantage  to  the  corporation,  for  in  1771, 
Thomas  Jones,  recorder  of  the  city,  held  a  conference 
with  several  Harlem  inhabitants  who  claimed  sections  of 
the  New  York  "  Commons,"  as  the  land  in  dispute  was 
known.2  The  recorder  was  successful  in  inducing  three 
of  the  residents  to  surrender  all  title  to  this  property  in 
exchange  for  a  lease  from  the  corporation.  Against  the 
more  stubborn  claimants,  the  city  brought  suit  for 
ejectment. 

This  tedious  boundary  tangle  was  brought  nearer  to 
settlement  by  referring  the  matter  to  arbitration,  at  the 
suggestion  of  Harlem,  and  an  act  creating  an  arbitration 
board  was  secured  from  the  provincial  legislature.3  So 
important  did  the  common  council  regard  this  matter, 
that  at  times  as  many  as  ten  of  its  members  attended  the 
meetings  of  the  commission.4  Unfortunately  their  solici- 

1M.  C.  C,,  vol.v,  pp.  339-340,  345.     Vfruf.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  272-275,  343-344. 
3  CoL  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  432-437.       *  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  p.  4. 


I46       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [346 

tude  was  not  rewarded,  for  a  decision  adverse  to  the 
corporation  was  rendered  by  the  arbitration  board. 
Where  formerly  Harlem  had  claimed  but  an  indetermi- 
nate commonage,  it  now  received  a  clear  title  to  a  tri- 
angular tract  of  290  acres  south  of  its  former  boundary 
line.  Hereafter  the  city  of  New  York  and  the  town  of 
Harlem  were  divided  by  a  line  running  diagonally  across 
Manhattan  Island.1  It  began  on  the  east  side  at  what  is 
now  Seventy-fourth  Street,  crossed  Second  Avenue  at 
what  is  now  Seventy-ninth  Street,  and  Third  Avenue  at 
Eighty-first  Street,  and  reached  the  Hudson  River  at  the 
present  One  hundred  and  twenty-ninth  Street.  This 
award  was  indeed  a  serious  abridgment  of  the  corporate 
claims  of  the  city. 

One  peculiar  restriction  was  placed  upon  the  power  of 
the  corporation  to  hold  property  by  a  section  of  the 
charter  which  declared  that  at  no  time  should  the  cor- 
poration hold  lands  exceeding  a  clear  annual  rental  of 
over  £3000  sterling.2  But,  according  to  Chancellor  Kent 
this  restriction  was  inconsequential,  because  it  applied 
only  to  the  valuation  of  the  municipal  real  estate  at  the 
time  of  the  granting  of  the  charter  in  I73I.3  In  that 
year  the  total  revenue  of  the  corporation  amounted  to 
less  than  £400,  but  Kent  holds  that  no  subsequent  ad- 
vance in  the  value  of  the  property  could  affect  the  title 
of  the  corporation  to  it.  The  corporation's  power  of 
alienating  any  parcel  of  its  property  was  vested  in  the 
common  council.  It  exercised  that  function  immedi- 
ately after  the  granting  of  the  charter.  In  fact,  the  cor- 
poration was  brought  to  the  point  of  parting  with  some 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  841-844.  Gerard,  Treatise  on  the  Title  of  the 
Corporation  and  Others  to  the  Streets,  Wharves,  Piers,  Parks,  Ferries, 
etc.  (N.  Y.,  1872),  p.  77. 

*Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  631.        "Kent,  Charter  of  N.  Y.,  pp.  266-267. 


347]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS  147 

of  its  valuable  real  estate  as  a  result,  probably,  of  be- 
stowing £1,000  upon  Governor  Montgomerie  in  appreci- 
ation of  his  grant  of  the  charter.  This  sum  was  raised 
by  mortgaging  seven  lots  which  comprised  two  blocks 
between  Moore  and  Whitehall,  Pearl,  Water  and  Front 
Streets.1  This  mortgage  was  paid  off  astonishingly  soon 
when,  within  a  year,  the  lots  were  sold  at  auction  for 
£i344.2  This  sale  marked  the  end  of  the  policy  of  dis- 
posing of  city  property  by  the  sale  of  the  fee.  There- 
after in  the  colonial  period  no  land  was  fully  conveyed 
by  the  city  for  cash  payment,  but,  instead,  an  annual 
rental  fee  was  demanded  of  all  purchasers  of  water  lots. 

The  real  estate  which  the  corporation  sold  may  be 
classed  either  as  upland  or  as  shore  property.  After 
1732  all  inland  lots  were  uniformly  offered  at  an  annual 
rental  and  for  a  specified  term  of  years.  This  is  seen  in 
the  case  of  the  letting  of  a  house  and  nineteen  acres 
west  of  the  Sawkill  Bridge,  in  1737,  to  one  Nathan  Mac- 
guire  at  a  yearly  rental  of  forty  shillings,  for  a  term  of 
twenty-one  years.3  At  times  the  corporation  tried  ener- 
getically to  promote  its  surburban  property  by  offering 
large  parcels  of  land  for  rental.  In  1762,  land  east  of 
the  highway  to  Kingsbridge  was  marked  off  into  lots 
by  the  city  surveyor  and  offered  at  £4  annual  rental,  for 
a  term  of  twenty-one  years.4  In  the  following  year 
thirty-one  lots  in  what  is  now  the  Murray  Hill  district 
were  staked  off  into  five-acre  parcels,  and  the  corporation 
was  successful  in  leasing  the  greater  part  of  them.5 

To  this  plan  of  leasing  its  inland  property  for  a  defi- 
nite term  of  years,  the  common  council  made  but  few 

1  Black,  History  of  Municipal  Ownership   of  Land  on  Manhattan 
Island  (N.  Y.,  1891),  p.  27. 

»Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  134-135.  slbid.,  p.  420. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  287-288.  6  Ibid.,  pp.  333,  364. 


I4g       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [348 

exceptions.  One  case  was  the  transfer  of  ten  acres  of 
swamp  land,  which  included  what  are  now  the  blocks 
between  Eighteenth  and  Twentieth  Streets  on  Broadway. 
In  1745  this  property  was  granted  forever  to  Admiral 
Sir  Peter  Warren  at  an  annual  rental  of  £4,  in  recognition 
of  his  services  against  the  enemies  of  the  kingdom.  In 
this  case  the  common  council  apparently  deemed  it 
pardonable  to  deviate  from  its  usual  policy.1  Another 
departure  was  made  in  1766,  when  the  Reformed  Protest- 
ant Dutch  Church  was  given  a  perpetual  lease  to  a  piece 
of  land  to  be  used  as  a  burial  ground.2  Nor  was  this 
the  only  church  to  receive  so  special  a  favor  from  the 
common  council.  In  the  same  year  the  Presbyterian 
congregation,  calling  attention  to  a  gift  of  land  which 
Trinity  corporation  had  previously  received  as  a  burial 
ground,  petitioned  for  a  grant  of  the  land  between  Beek- 
man  Street,  the  Post  Road  and  Nassau  Street.3  The 
common  council  acquiesced  and  gave  the  petitioners 
a  perpetual  lease  of  this  land,  on  which  stood  for  years 
the  first  Brick  Presbyterian  Church. 

Two  large  tracts  of  swamp  land  on  Manhattan  Island 
were  granted  to  New  York  citizens  within  the  period 
now  in  review.  The  most  extensive  transfer  was  the 
grant  of  seventy  acres  to  Alderman  Anthony  Rutgers. 
This  enterprising  city  father  obtained  a  patent  from  the 
home  government  in  1730,  on  condition  that  he  drain 
the  territory  in  question.4  In  1734  Jacobus  Roosevelt 
bought  from  the  city  for  a  sum  of  £200,  which  included 
£100  already  paid  for  ten  lots,  a  plot  of  four  and  one- 
half  acres,  known  as  Beekman's  swamp.5  This  district 
in  later  years  became  the  centre  of  the  leather  industry, 
a  connection  that  has  lasted  to  the  present  day. 

1Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  144,  148.          *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  4,  130. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  8-12.  *Col.  Docs.,  vol.  v,  pp.  914,  918. 

6M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  211. 


349]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS  149 

Besides  these  lands,  the  other  kind  of  municipal  real 
estate  was  the  shore  property  commonly  known  as 
"  water  lots,"  comprised  in  a  strip  of  land  extending 
from  low  water  mark  to  a  distance  of  400  feet  under  the 
river.1  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  common  council, 
in  its  petition  for  a  new  charter,  had  asked  that  its  rights 
to  the  waters  around  lower  Manhattan  might  be  enlarged. 
This  request  was  granted,  the  crown  not  alone  giving 
the  city  in  fee  the  land  between  high  and  low  water 
mark,  but  also  augmenting  its  territory  to  include  that 
lying  under  water  to  a  line  400  feet  beyond  low  water 
mark.  This  line  was  to  extend  along  the  Hudson  River 
from  a  point  south  of  Bestaver's  Kill  and  on  the  East 
River  south  of  Corlaer's  Hook,  but  not  to  include  the 
Battery  at  the  southern  apex  of  Manhattan  Island.2  In 
locating  this  grant  on  the  present  map  of  New  York 
city,  we  find  that  it  extended  around  the  lower  business 
section  from  a  point  on  the  North  River  near  the  foot  of 
Charlton  Street  to  the  southerly  side  of  Marketfield 
street,  passing  over  Battery  Place  and  recommencing  at 
Whitehall  Street  on  the  East  River,  and  thence  continu- 
ing to  a  point  near  Houston  Street. 

These  riparian  rights  of  the  corporation  have  been  the 
cause  of  considerable  litigation.  In  early  years  the  city 
had  difficulties  with  individuals  desiring  to  build  docks 
or  to  operate  ferries.  A  century  later  these  rights  came 
into  consideration  when  railroads  became  eager  to  secure 
freight  depots  and  ferry  communication  with  their  ter- 
minals on  the  opposite  shore,  and  when  steamship  lines 
manifested  a  desire  to  extend  their  piers  for  the  accom- 
modation of  giant  transatlantic  liners.  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  there  were  three  boundaries:  high- 

1  Gerard,  op.  cit.,  p.  73,  83. 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  600;  Hoffman,  op.  cit.,  p.  186. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [350 

water  mark,  low-water  mark,  and  the  4OO-foot  line.  It 
should  also  be  remembered  that  any  grant  made  by  the 
corporation  prior  to  1731  could  have  extended  only  to 
low-water  mark,  because  the  territory  of  the  municipa- 
lity did  not  extend  beyond  that  line  before  the  granting 
of  the  Montgomerie  Charter. 

When  the  owners  of  shore  properties  came  to  realize 
the  significance  of  the  newly  acquired  grants  to  the  city, 
they  became  eager  to  purchase  from  the  city  the  water 
lots  that  lay  in  front  of  their  own  property  and  thereby 
acquire  that  4OO-foot  territory.  Many  persons,  antici- 
pating the  commercial  growth  of  the  city,  sought  to 
secure  the  water  lots  for  docks  and  ferry  landings. 

As  the  common  council  was  vested  absolutely  with 
the  power  of  alienating  such  property  of  the  corporation, 
all  requests  for  water  lots  were  directed  to  this  body.1 

Upon  the  receipt  of  a  petition,  it  was  referred  to  a 
committee  of  the  common  council.  Three  different 
recommendations  were  possible  :  to  grant  it,  to  deny  it, 
or  to  "  pigeonhole  "  it.  Unfortunately  the  members  of 
the  common  council,  at  that  time,  with  utter  disregard 
for  the  future,  permitted  these  rich  riparian  rights  to 
pass  into  the  hands  of  a  number  of  private  individuals. 
In  return  for  a  paltry  quit-rent,  valuable  water  lots 
would  be  lost  to  the  corporation  forever.  How  greatly 
these  properties  increased  in  value  in  after  years,  when 
sites  for  ferry  landings,  railroad  terminals  and  piers 
were  sought,  it  is  impossible  to  estimate.  After  the 
Revolutionary  period  the  municipality  awoke,  only  to 
find  that  much  of  its  riparian  land  had  been  deeded  away 
to  private  persons. 

These  transfers   were  not  only  shortsighted,  but  at 

1 M.  C.  C.,  op.  cit.,  passim. 


35 1  ]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS  151 

times  even  scandalous,  for  individual  magistrates  were 
often  questionably  involved  in  the  transactions.  The 
Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  themselves  are  evidence 
of  the  fact  that  no  member  of  this  body  ever  petitioned 
for  a  water  lot  in  vain.  The  same  cannot  be  said  of 
similar  requests  from  citizens  in  general.  Though  it  is 
true  that  a  number  of  grants  were  made  to  officers  of 
the  provincial  government  and  other  prominent  citizens, 
petitions  were  often  quietly  pigeonholed  or  summarily 
rejected.  This  palpable  discrimination  in  awarding  mu- 
nicipal lands  provoked  considerable  criticism  at  the  time. 
The  Independent  Reflector  contains  a  scathing  letter 
which  states  that  the  terms  proposed  in  certain  petitions 
for  water  lots  were  being  denounced  in  all  the  coffee 
houses  of  the  city.1  One  newspaper  contributor,  "  Agri- 
cola,"  defends  the  petitions  on  the  ground  that  the  cor- 
poration had  always  granted  water  lots  on  terms  agreed 
upon,  between  itself  and  the  petitioner,  and  not  at  public 
vendue.  The  •  first  writer  answers  this  statement  by 
declaring  that  even  if  preceding  aldermen  had  done 
wrong,  it  was  no  excuse  for  the  present  incumbents  to 
imitate  their  example.  He  also  holds  that  the  munici- 
pality, like  a  private  person,  was  entitled  to  profit  through 
a  rise  in  the  value  of  the  water  lots. 

Though  the  common  council  continued  to  part  with 
its  riparian  rights,  it  did  retain  several  valuable  strips, 
on  which  docks  and  wharves  were  erected.  Until  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  corporation  took 
very  little  interest  in  the  development  of  its  own  water- 
front property.  Long  before  1731,  the  city  had  built 
the  "Great  Dock,"  at  the  foot  of  Broad  Street.  Al- 
though commerce  was  growing  rapidly,  the  common 

1  Independent  Reflector,  Feb.  r,  March  i,  1753. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [352 

council  for  many  years  did  not  construct  a  new  dock, 
but  merely  repaired  and  enlarged  the  old  one.  Even  in 
this  work  of  restoration  it  was  delinquent,  for  it  ordered 
improvements  on  the  Great  Dock  only  after  several  mer- 
chants had  privately  paid  for  needed  repairs.1  Again, 
this  same  dock  was  continually  deteriorating  through 
damage  by  winter  storms  and  tidal  action ;  but  little  or 
nothing  was  done  toward  improvement  prior  to  1750. 
This  condition  was  due  to  the  policy  of  the  common 
council  in  refusing  to  appropriate  for  repairing  or  for 
cleaning  the  dock  a  single  farthing  not  derived  from  the 
dock  as  revenue.2  In  1751  the  Great  Dock  received  a 
thorough  overhauling,  when  the  municipality  purchased 
scows  and  removed  sixty  loads  of  mud  surrounding  it. 
The  shortsightedness  of  the  policy  which  the  common 
council  had  been  pursuing  was  demonstrated  by  the 
fact  that,  before  1750,  the  returns  to  the  city  from  the 
dock  never  exceeded  the  sum  of  £100  in  any  year;  while 
in  1754,  after  improvements  had  been  completed,  the 
annual  revenue  rose  to  £380.  With  the  increase  in 
profits  of  the  dock,  the  common  council  was  more 
willing  to  appropriate  money  for  lengthening  and  widen- 
ing it. 

Next  in  importance  to  the  Great  Dock,  the  city  pos- 
sessed on  the  East  River  another  structure  known  as 
the  Albany  Pier.3  It  was'  an  addition  to  Coenties  Slip, 
for  we  learn  that  in  1750  a  committee  of  the  common 
council  was  appointed  to  run  out  a  pier  on  the  west  side 
of  Coenties  Slip,  and  a  large  amount  of  money  was  ap- 

1M.  C,  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  57-58. 

Ubid.,  p.  456. 

'Though  the  Albany  Pier  is  first  mentioned  in  the  Minutes  (vol.  vii, 
p.  77)  in  1767,  it  appears  on  the  Marschalck  plan  of  the  City  of  New- 
York  in  1754.  Stokes,  Iconography,  op.  cit.,  plate  34, 


353]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

propriated  for  the  purpose.1  The  work  proved  more 
expensive  than  had  been  anticipated,  for  the  common 
council  was  obliged  to  contribute  additional  sums  before 
it  was  completed.2  As  two  small  piers  of  the  old  wharf 
had  been  so  poorly  constructed  that  vessels  occasionally 
slipped  from  their  moorings,  especially  in  stormy  weather, 
they  were  dismantled  and  the  material  was  used  in  con- 
structing the  new  pier.  In  1765  a  number  of  merchants 
suggested  that  £1000  be  spent  in  extending  the  pier  two 
hundred  feet  further  into  the  river.3  The  corporation 
accepted  the  advice  in  part,  but  allowed  only  a  small 
sum  for  the  work. 

On  the  North  River  the  corporation  did  not  possess 
a  dock  of  importance  until  1771,  as  the  merchants  of  the 
city  confined  their  warehouses  to  the  East  River.  How 
the  trend  of  shipping  activities  has  changed  !  In  colonial 
days  business  interests  favored  the  East  River  rather 
than  the  Hudson,  for  the  former  was  more  sheltered 
from  storms  and  from  the  wash  of  the  tide,  and  also 
offered  easy  access  to  New  England  ports  by  the  way  of 
Long  Island  Sound.  At  present,  the  East  River  is  used 
merely  by  local  steamship  lines,  the  transatlantic  com- 
panies favoring  the  North  River.  It  was  not  until  just 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  that  a  landing 
known  as  the  "  Corporation  Dock  "  was  completed. 

Excepting  the  Great  Dock,  the  Albany  Pier  and  the 
Corporation  Dock,  all  other  wharves  owned  by  the  city 
were  not  worthy  of  the  name,  as  they  were  nothing 
more  than  mere  landings,  used  mainly  by  the  small  boats 
which  brought  food  supplies  to  the  municipal  markets. 
In  the  Montgomerie  Ward  the  corporation  possessed 

1Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  314.  */6uf.,  p.  371. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  410411. 


154       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [354 

two  slips,  Beekman's  and  Burling's.  In  front  of  the  Fly 
and  the  Coenties  markets  it  had  built  two  other  land- 
ings;  and  it  owned  a  fifth  known  as  the  "Old  Slip." 
These  wharves  were  so  neglected  by  the  common  coun- 
cil that,  on  one  occasion,  they  were  condemned  as  public 
nuisances  by  the  grand  jury,  and  the  city  was  compelled 
to  expend  a  considerable  sum  toward  renovating  them.1 

Though  all  these  docks,  piers  and  slips  were  municipal 
property,  they  were  not  operated  by  the  city,  but,  as  in 
the  management  of  the  ferries,  were  leased  to  the  highest 
bidder.  The  arrangement  between  the  lessees  and  the 
corporation  was  usually  as  follows.  The  rent  was  to  be 
paid  quarterly,  was  secured  by  a  bond,  and  the  city 
was  not  entitled  to  any  of  the  profits  arising  from  the 
use  of  the  docks,  as  they  belonged  to  the  lessee. 

Less  clear  were  the  arrangements  regarding  the  main- 
tenance of  the  docks.  This  work  was  divided  between 
the  two  parties,  the  corporation  was  to  make  all  neces- 
sary repairs,  and  the  lessee  was  expected  to  keep  clear 
the  wharves  and  their  approaches.2  However,  the  dock- 
master  usually  neglected  this  duty  and  the  entire  work 
of  maintaining  the  piers  and  docks  finally  devolved  upon 
the  corporation. 

The  dockmaster  had  several  other  duties  to  perform 
in  addition  to  the  collection  of  wharfage  and  cranage. 
As  several  vessels  were  frequently  ready  for  unloading  at 
the  same  time,  he  would  assign  berths  for  ships  that  were 
waiting.  He  was  also  expected  to  see  that  no  fires  were 
lighted  between  the  hours  of  eight  P.  M.  and  daybreak 
on  board  vessels  lying  on  the  municipal  docks,  a  regula- 
tion which  no  doubt  caused  hardship  on  cold  nights.3 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  113-114.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  246-247. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  98,  170. 


.355] 


PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 


The  dockmaster  was  also  to  warn  captains  of  incoming 
vessels  not  to  indulge  in  the  ruinous  practice  of  casting 
their  anchors  into  municipal  piers. 

Such  were  the  principles  underlying  the  regulation  of 
the  public  dock ;  a  study  of  the  actual  supervision  of  the 
Great  Dock  shows  that  the  rules  were  not  strictly  fol- 
lowed in  actual  practice.  Andrew  Law  was  the  dock- 
master  after  the  granting  of  the  Montgomerie  Charter. 
In  1735  he  secured  the  dock  privileges,  as  highest  bidder, 
for  £83  IDS,  at  an  auction  held  in  the  tavern  of  Obadiah 
Hunt,  who  went  security  as  Law's  bondsman  to  the 
extent  of  £260.' 

Law's  three-year  tenure  was  replete  with  difficulties, 
of  which  litigation  was  the  chief  one.  The  dockmaster 
claimed  that  a  certain  wharf  between  Wall  Street  and 
"Burnett's  Key"  was  regarded  in  the  terms  of  his  lease 
as  a  municipal  slip.  Supported  by  the  corporation,  Law 
insisted  upon  his  right  to  collect  dock  money  from  ves- 
sels lying  at  this  wharf.2  In  asserting  his  claim,  Law  was 
opposed  by  one  Thomas  Barnes,  and  a  suit  followed 
before  the  courts.  The  case  of  Law  vs.  Barnes  was 
first  heard  before  the  mayor's  court,  but,  upon  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  justices,  it  was  transferred  to  the  supreme 
court  of  the  province.3 

Financial  troubles  as  well  as  legal  difficulties  also  dis- 
turbed the  peace  of  mind  of  Dockmaster  Law.  Before 
he  had  been  in  charge  a  year,  he  was  far  in  arrears  in 
rent,  and  was  threatened  with  prosecution  by  the  cor- 
poration. However,  the  common  council  may  have  felt 
that  the  dockmaster  was  sufficiently  plagued  with  the 
suit  mentioned  above,  for  the  threat  was  apparently  not 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  248.  2  Ibid.,  p.  314. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  409-410.    The  Minutes  of  the  Supreme  Court  do  not  dis- 
-close  the  final  disposition  of  this  case. 


I56       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [356 

executed.  But  at  the  expiration  of  his  lease  in  1738, 
Law  was  hopelessly  in  arrears,  and  when  he  died,  in  the 
following  year,  his  goods  and  chattels  were  attached  by 
the  corporation.1 

In  1738  the  corporation  again  advertised  the  dock 
privileges  at  auction,  this  time  at  the  inn  of  William 
English.2  Some  of  the  members  of  the  common  coun- 
cil were  present  at  the  sale,  which  was  rendered  more 
interesting  by  their  partaking  of  the  hospitality  of  the 
tavern  at  the  expense  of  the  city.  The  bidding  was  low, 
due  probably  to  the  misfortunes  of  the  previous  lessee ; 
and  the  dock  rights  were  finally  "  sold "  to  Abraham 
Elbertse  for  £61. 

As  the  lease  was  for  only  a  year,  the  dock  was  again 
auctioned  in  1739.  This  time  it  went  to  Samuel  Richards 
at  the  higher  rental  of  £85.2  A  bond  of  £160  for  the 
performance  of  the  covenant  was  executed  by  Bartholo- 
mew Skaats,  who  himself  fell  heir  to  the  dock  lease  in 
1740  at  a  rental  of  £73.  For  the  next  thirteen  years 
Skaats  regularly  renewed  his  lease,  at  times  without 
going  through  the  formality  of  a  public  auction.  The 
financial  relations  between  this  lessee  and  the  corpora- 
tion were  quite  satisfactory,  for  the  dockmaster  was 
prompt  in  renewing  his  bond  and  in  paying  his  quarterly 
rent.  It  was  he  who  removed  the  many  scowloads  of 
mud  which  had  accumulated  in  the  Great  Dock  and  at 
adjoining  wharves.  As  several  new  slips  had  been  built 
near  the  markets,  Skaats  deemed  it  advisable  also  to 
secure  the  lease  of  all  the  public  markets. 

Skaats'  last  lease  expired  in  1753.  By  this  time  the 
dock  rights  had  been  considerably  enhanced  by  the  im- 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  358,  467.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  421,  434. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  457- 


357]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

provements  on  the  Great  Dock,  and  by  the  extension  of 
Coenties  Slip.  Although  Skaats  had  usually  paid  less 
than  f  100  rental,  the  docks  and  wharves  now  were  leased 
in  1753  for  £235  to  Luke  Roome.1  He  was  followed  in 
turn  by  Garret  Cosine  and  by  Adolph  Brass,  both  of 
whom  made  high  bids  for  the  dock  rights.  They  were 
not  as  desirable  tenants  as  was  former  Dockmaster 
Skaats,  who,  although  giving  a  smaller  rental,  always 
paid  promptly.  The  same  cannot  be  said  of  his  succes- 
sors. Roome  fell  far  in  arrears  in  his  rent,  while  Cosine 
owed  the  corporation  £255  and  Brass  £234,  when  their 
leases  terminated.  In  addition,  the  lessees  failed  to 
clean  the  slips,  and  the  city  was  forced  to  expend  £60 
for  this  work.  Fortunately  the  next  dock-master,  John 
Griffith,  proved  more  trustworthy,  for  his  bid  of  £500 
was  regularly  paid.  Luke  Roome,  who  had  shown  him- 
self an  inefficient  dockmaster  in  1753,  outbid  Griffith, 
in  1766,  by  offering  £620.  Again  Roome  was  unable 
to  fulfill  his  obligations,  and  he  prayed  for  an  abate- 
ment of  the  rent.  John  Griffith  again  took  up  the  lease 
in  1771,  in  partnership  with  John  Bingham.  The  next 
year,  the  latter  secured  the  lease  for  himself  and  held 
it  until  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution. 

In  many  respects  the  administration  of  the  public 
docks  resembles  that  of  the  municipal  ferries,  as  the 
city  operated  neither  of  these  public  utilities,  but  leased 
them  for  terms  of  years  to  private  persons.  But  there 
was  a  wide  difference  in  the  matter  of  regulating  the 
rates  on  the  ferries  and  on  the  docks.  The  province,  it 
will  be  shown  in  the  following  chapter,  exercised  the 
power  of  fixing  the  charges  on  the  municipal  ferries — 
a  right  which  even  the  corporation  conceded  in  its  peti- 
tion for  the  Montgomerie  Charter,  when  it  asked  for  the 

1 M.  C.  C,,  vol.  v,  p.  396. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [358" 

ferries,  "  with  such  fees  as  Shall  be  Regulated  by  Act  of 
Assembly."1  But  no  such  phrase  appears  in  the  next 
prayer  of  the  petition,  asking  for  all  the  "  Docks  Slips 
and  Wharfs  with  Craneage  and  Wharfeage  &  all  Other 
Profits  which  may  Accrue  thereby."  This  statement 
was  embodied  in  the  Montgomeric  Charter,  without 
any  qualifying  clause  as  to  the  power  of  the  province 
over  the  city's  docks.  In  fact,  the  exclusive  control  of 
the  municipality  over  this  property  was  respected  by  the 
provincial  government,  for  it  did  not  pass  any  act  regu- 
lating the  public  wharves  between  1731  and  1776.  It 
did  enact  several  statutes  fixing  the  rates  to  be  charged 
at  private  docks  on  Manhattan,  the  first  being  in  1734, 
when  a  schedule  was  set  for  a  private  wharf  named 
"  Burnett's  Key."  2  Later  the  act  was  renewed  by  the 
provincial  legislature,  and  expanded  to  cover  other  pri- 
vate docks  in  the  city.3  In  1770  the  law  was  again  re- 
newed, and,  with  a  slight  amendment  the  following  year,, 
it  continued  in  force  until  the  end  of  the  colonial  period. 
All  of  these  statutes  definitely  stated  that  no  provision 
was  to  apply  to  docks  or  wharves  belonging  to  the  cor- 
poration of  New  York. 

The  common  council,  therefore,  possessed  exclusive 
power  to  determine  the  rates  on  municipal  docks,  a 
right  which  it  exercised  in  two  ordinances,  one  passed 
in  1731,  the  other  in  I759-4  In  1759  two  schedules  of 
rates  were  drawn  up  by  the  common  council,  one  for 
coasting  vessels  from  the  ports  of  New  York,  New  Jersey 
and  Connecticut,  the  other  for  ships  coming  from  the- 
remaining  colonies — from  New  Hampshire  through  to 
North  Carolina. 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  20.  *  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  847-849.. 

llbid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  437-440;  iv,  pp.  23-27. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  99-100;  vol.  vi,  pp.  168-172. 


359]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

Besides  ferries  and  docks,  another  improvement  of  the 
waterfront  was  the  erection  of  bridges.  In  this  work 
the  corporation  took  no  part,  for  the  Hudson  and  the 
East  Rivers  were  too  broad  to  be  spanned,  and  the  Har- 
lem, which  alone  was  narrow  enough  to  be  bridged,  was 
so  distant  from  lower  Manhattan,  that  the  municipality 
had  no  direct  interest  in  its  development.  Private  indi- 
viduals, therefore,  financed  the  construction  of  the  first 
three  bridges  across  the  Harlem  River.  The  earliest 
was  erected  by  Colonel  Frederick  Philipse,  at  the  north- 
ern end  of  the  Kingsbridge  Road ;  the  second,  by  Jacob 
Dyckman,  at  a  point  further  down  the  river;  and  the 
third,  by  Colonel  Lewis  Morris,  Jr.,  at  Morrisania. 

Until  1759,  Philipse's  bridge  offered  the  only  means 
of  traveling  by  land  from  Manhattan  Island  to  West- 
chester  County.  About  this  time  Colonel  Philipse's 
monopoly  was  broken  through  the  efforts  of  an  enter- 
prising person  named  Benjamin  Palmer,  who  planned  to 
erect  a  second  bridge  across  the  Harlem  river.1  He  en- 
tered into  partnership,  first  with  Jacob  Dyckman,  black- 
smith and  tavernkeeper,  who  owned  a  farm  on  the  Man- 
hattan side  of  the  Harlem  river,  and  then  with  Thomas 
Vermillia,  who  possessed  land  directly  opposite  on  the 
Westchester  shore.2  Having  secured,  as  a  site,  land  a 
little  to  the  southeast  of  Kingsbridge,  Palmer's  next 
problem  was  to  raise  funds  for  building  his  proposed 
bridge.  This  was  accomplished  by  collecting  subscrip- 
tions from  private  individuals.  Palmer's  difficulties  did 
not  end  here,  for  he  now  encountered  the  active 
opposition  of  Colonel  Philipse,  who  did  not  relish  the 
prospect  of  a  new  crossing  in  competition  with  his  own 

^dsall,  History  of  the  Township  of  Kings  Bridge  (N.  Y.,  1887), 
p.  17. 

*  De  Voe,  Market  Book,  pp.  63-65. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [360 

toll-bridge.  In  his  hostility,  it  is  said,  Philipse  even 
went  so  far  as  to  have  Palmer  drafted  into  the  British 
service,  but  fortunately  the  latter  was  able  to  secure  a 
substitute.  All  these  difficulties  were  finally  overcome, 
and  the  "Freebridge,"  as  the  new  crossing  was  called, 
was  opened  to  the  public,  with  fitting  celebration,  on 
New  Year's  day,  1759,  by  hundreds  of  persons  from 
Manhattan  and  Westchester. 

Traveling  was  soon  diverted  from  Philipse's  bridge  to 
the  new  structure.  The  chief  reason  for  this  change  was 
that  exorbitant  tolls  were  charged  on  the  former,  while 
free  passage  was  permitted  on  the  latter.  The  free 
bridge  offered  another  advantage,  as  it  shortened  the 
route  from  New  York  to  Westchester  by  half  a  mile. 
The  new  bridge  was  also  made  more  accessible  for  trav- 
elers by  the  construction  of  a  new  road,  joining  the 
bridge  with  the  Albany  and  the  Boston  roads.  Four 
months  after  the  opening  of  the  new  bridge  so  little 
traffic  passed  over  Philipse's  crossing  that  his  bridge 
tender  abandoned  his  lease  and  the  Colonel  was  com- 
pelled to  advertise  in  the  Gazette  for  a  new  tenant.1  By 
1771  the  bridge  had  become  dilapidated,  and  the  com- 
mon council  ordered  its  committee  on  roads  to  "  confer 
with  the  Mayor  of  West  Chester  "  concerning  the  repair 
of  the  structure.2 

The  next  step  in  the  process  of  spanning  the  Harlem 
was  taken  in  1774,  when  Colonel  Lewis  Morris,  Jr.,  ap- 
plied to  the  common  council  for  permission  to  erect  a 
new  bridge.3  In  his  petition  he  pointed  out  that  the 
existing  post  road  through  Eastchester  was  inconvenient 
for  travelers,  as  it  was  indirect  and  led  over  steep  hills. 

1  Gazette,  April  9,  1759.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  313. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  7-8. 


361]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

To  relieve  these  conditions,  Morris  and  several  of  his 
neighbors  agreed,  not  only  to  construct  a  bridge  over 
the  Harlem,  but  also  to  lay  out  in  Morrisania  a  road 
which  would  be  of  a  more  nearly  level  grade,  and  shorter 
by  over  four  miles  than  the  former  highway  to  East- 
chester.  The  common  council  granted  permission  to 
erect  the  bridge,  with  the  provision  that  it  be  devoted 
to  the  use  of  the  public  and  not  to  private  gain.  The 
provincial  legislature  also  gave  its  consent,  but  on  con- 
dition "That  in  such  Bridge  there  shall  be  three  or 
more  Apertures  of  at  least  twenty-five  Feet  each,  for  the 
Convenience  of  navigating  the  said  River  by  Small  Boats  : 
And  the  said  Bridge  when  so  built  shall  be  and  is  hereby 
declared  to  be  a  free  and  public  Highway." z 

Although  the  corporation  of  New  York  took  no  hand 
in  the  building  of  bridges,  its  jurisdiction  over  such  im- 
provements was  apparently  accepted.  Morris  recog- 
nized this  fact,  for  in  his  petition  he  admits  that  he 
would  not  be  permitted  to  build  his  bridge  without  the 
consent  of  the  common  council.2  The  Montgomerie 
Charter  also  confirmed  the  power  of  the  city  to  establish 
"water  courses  and  bridges."3 

Concerning  the  land  system  of  the  city,  the  following 
information  has  thus  far  been  given  :  its  limits  have  been 
indicated;  the  legal  capacity  of  the  corporation  of  the 
city  of  New  York  for  holding  property  has  been  ex- 
plained ;  its  interior  lands,  its  water  lots,  such  waterfront 
improvements  as  docks  and  bridges  have  been  considered. 
It  remains  to  note  what  steps  were  taken  to  develop  the 
interior  of  Manhattan  Island,  especially  in  regard  to  the 
maintenance  of  roadways. 

;  1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  708-709.  W.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  p.  8. 

5  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  613. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [362 

The  legal  rights  of  the  corporation  over  public  thor- 
oughfares within  the  city  were  definitely  established  in 
various  acts  of  the  provincial  government.  Through  the 
Montgomerie  Charter,  the  municipality  was  given  full 
power  to  lay  out  streets,  lanes,  alleys,  and  highways,  a 
grant  which  few  other  local  governmental  units  in  the 
colonies  ever  received.1  In  some  respects,  however,  the 
authority  of  the  corporation  over  the  streets  was  limited. 
In  laying  out  new  thoroughfares,  for  example,  the  city 
was  forbidden  to  take  any  person's  property  without  his 
or  her  consent.  In  case  of  consent  the  owner  was  reim- 
bursed by  the  payment  of  a  reasonable  compensation  as- 
sessed by  a  jury.2  The  power  of  the  common  council 
over  urban  roads  was  further  defined  in  five  provincial 
acts,  all  passed  after  the  granting  of  the  Montgomerie 
Charter.  The  purpose  of  these  statutes  was  not  to  alter 
the  general  charter  rights  of  the  corporation,  but  rather 
to  give  specific  direction  or  added  sanction  to  the  com- 
mon council  in  the  exercise  of  its  powers.  This  "  inter- 
ference "  on  the  part  of  the  province,  in  the  rights  of 
the  city  over  its  streets,  is  regarded  as  proper  by  Chan- 
cellor Kent,  who  points  out  that  the  grant  to  the  corpo- 
ration is  of  a  public  and  not  of  a  private  nature.3 

A  distinction  must  here  be  drawn  between  streets  and 
highways.  The  former  were  the  urban  thoroughfares ; 
the  latter  were  the  long  avenues  such  as  the  Boston  Post 
Road,Bloomingdale  Road  and  Kingsbridge  Road,  the  last 
extending  from  the  lower  part  of  Manhattan  northward 
through  Harlem.  In  the  settled  portion  of  the  town 
the  highways  were  crossed  by  streets  which  ran  from 
east  to  west.  Though  both  the  city  and  the  provincial 

'Fairlie,  in  Municipal  Affairs,  vol.  ii,  p.  371. 

2  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  838-842. 

1  Kent,  Charter  of  New  York,  pp.  235-237. 


363]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

governments  exercised  concurrent  control  over  thor- 
oughfares, the  former  paid  more  attention  to  the  main- 
tenance of  streets,  whereas  the  latter  was  more  concerned 
in  the  upkeep  of  highways. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  administration  of  the  high- 
ways. As  they  were  opened  long  before  1731,  our  in- 
terest is  limited  to  their  maintenance.  The  province 
passed  five  acts  after  1731  relating  to  the  highways  in 
New  York  County.  The  first  of  these  statutes  was  passed 
in  1741,  and  applied  to  the  Kingsbridge  Road,  which 
was  ordered  to  be  kept  in  repair  by  the  inhabitants  of 
all  the  city's  wards.1  The  work  was  placed  under  the 
supervision  of  three  surveyors,  who  were  chosen  by  the 
justices  of  the  peace  at  the  court  of  quarter  sessions 
held  in  February.  Having  ascertained  what  repairs 
were  needed  on  the  highway,  the  surveyors  would  sum- 
mon the  necessary  number  of  inhabitants  to  assemble  at 
a  place  selected  by  them,  and  to  supply  themselves  with 
spades,  pickaxes  and  other  tools.  The  surveyors  could 
requisition  even  horses  and  carts ;  a  team  and  wagon, 
together  with  a  driver  for  one  day,  being  considered  the 
equivalent  of  three  days'  labor.  One  who  received  no- 
tice was  not  compelled  to  appear  in  person,  since  he 
was  permitted  to  send  a  substitute  or  to  pay  a  charge  of 
six  shillings  for  every  day's  absence.  Ten  years  later,  the 
same  regulations  were  extended  by  the  provincial  legis- 
lature so  as  to  apply  also  to  the  Bloomingdale  Road.2 

These  two  acts  operated  very  unsatisfactorily,  as  they 
offered  an  unjust  and  impracticable  plan  of  highway  main- 
tenance. The  injustice  lay  in  the  method  of  demanding 
the  same  contribution  from  the  poor  person  as  from  the 
wealthy  inhabitant  who  daily  deepened  the  "  Ruts  with 

'Co/.  Laws,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  162-166.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  844-847. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [364 

his  gilded  Chariot."  x  Besides  this  inequitable  arrange- 
ment, the  other  defect  in  the  statute  was  the  unrestricted 
power  given  to  the  surveyors.  Since  they  possessed 
the  right  to  call  upon  every  family  in  the  city  wards, 
either  for  personal  service  or  for  a  fee  in  lieu  of  labor, 
there  was  ample  occasion  for  defrauding  the  public. 
Apparently  this  opportunity  was  not  lost  by  the  colonial 
surveyor,  for  we  learn  that  his  depredations  were  so  ex- 
tensive that  he  was  called  "a  mighty  Robber."  Accord- 
ing to  the  Independent  Reflector,  the  two  thousand 
families  of  the  city  were  called  upon,  at  least  twice  a 
year,  to  work  on  the  highways ;  and,  as  the  majority  of 
the  inhabitants  preferred  to  pay  the  fine  instead  of  ap- 
pearing in  person  or  sending  a  substitute,  the  surveyors 
were  able  to  collect  large  sums,  so  large  that  their  own 
profits  were  estimated  at  £400  annually. 

Notwithstanding  these  weaknesses,  the  two  acts  were 
not  altered  until  1764,  when  a  more  systematic  plan  for 
maintaining  the  roads  was  provided  by  the  provincial 
legislature.  Although  the  previous  statutes  had  applied 
to  only  two  highways,  the  new  law  called  for  the  regu- 
lation of  all  roadways  in  the  city  and  county  of  New 
York.2  The  defects  of  the  previous  acts  were  eliminated, 
for  the  administration  of  the  repairs  was  transferred  from 
the  surveyors  to  the  members  of  the  common  council, 
all  of  whom  were  appointed  commissioners  of  highways. 
They  hired  laborers  and  surveyors,  who  were  paid  out 
of  funds  collected  from  a  general  tax  on  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city.  This  act  proved  more  satisfactory  than  the 
previous  statutes  on  highways,  as  it  terminated  the 
"  graft "  of  the  surveyors,  and  consequently  it  was  re- 
newed in  I774-3 

1  Independent  Reflector,  Dec.  14,  1752. 

8  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  838-842.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  655-658. 


365]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS  ^5 

Thus  we  see  that  the  administration  and  maintenance 
of  highways  was  transferred  from  the  surveyors  to  the 
common  council,  a  body  which  was  certainly  more  in- 
terested in  good  and  efficient  regulation  of  thoroughfares, 
Before  this  change  in  1764,  the  common  council  had 
seldom  concerned  itself  with  the  repair  of  highways.  It 
did  order  such  minor  improvements  as  a  survey  of  the 
road  from  Spring  Garden  to  Fresh  Water  in  1736,  also 
of  a  public  highway  from  Queen  Street  to  Fresh  Water, 
and  a  payment  for  repairs  on  the  road  to  Sawkill  Bridge.1 
After  1765  the  common  council  entered  into  active  ad- 
ministration of  the  highways  by  ordering  a  levy  of  £300, 
in  accordance  with  the  new  provincial  act,  and  by  appoint- 
ing as  surveyors  Adam  and  Garrit  Van  Den  Bergh  and 
Adolph  Benson.2  These  men  were  paid  six  shillings  a 
day  and  were  under  the  direction  of  a  committee  of  the 
common  council.  This  system  obtained  without  change 
until  the  Revolution ;  the  same  amount,  £300,  was  always 
raised,  the  same  surveyors  were  always  re-appointed  :  and 
a  committee  of  the  common  council  continued  to  direct 
the  work  of  repairing  the  highways. 

These  are  the  legislative  acts  of  the  province  and  of 
the  city  in  regard  to  highways  on  Manhattan.  From  the 
above  analysis  it  is  clear  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
former  over  highways  was  more  extensive  than  that  of 
the  latter.  On  the  contrary,  the  municipality,  and  not 
the  province,  possessed  complete  control  over  streets. 
Provincial  legislation  on  streets  is  contained  in  one  act, 
which,  in  fact,  expands  the  power  of  the  city  govern- 
ment, as  it  was  given  the  right  to  pave  thoroughfares 
contiguous  to  vacant  lots  at  the  expense  of  the  owners.3 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  340-341 ;  vol.  v,  p.  16. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  404,  412-413.  'Co/.  Laws,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  996-998. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [366 

The  common  council  made  use  of  this  power  in  order- 
ing the  paving  of  Little  Queen  Street  and  also  of  Thames 
Street. 

In  contrast  to  this  one  act  of  the  province,  there  were 
many  ordinances  of  the  municipality  concerning  streets. 
As  most  of  the  thoroughfares  were  opened  in  the  Dutch 
or  in  the  early  English  period,  the  street  regulations 
passed  after  1731  pertained  mainly  to  grading,  paving, 
and  cleaning. 

All  matters  of  street  regulation  coming  before  the 
common  council  were  usually  referred  to  a  committee, 
which  generally  included  the  alderman  and  common 
councilman  of  the  ward  wherein  street  improvements 
were  being  contemplated.  The  grading  and  leveling  of 
streets  offered  a  nice  problem  in  colonial  times,  for  lower 
Manhattan  then  presented  a  very  uneven  surface,  espe- 
cially in  the  Montgomerie  Ward.  In  1755  a  committee 
was  appointed  to  inspect  all  streets  in  this  district  and 
in  the  North  Ward,  and  it  submitted  a  detailed  report 
which  clearly  shows  that  the  task  of  grading  was  diffi- 
cult.1 The  suggestions  of  the  committee  were  accepted 
by  the  common  council,  and  a  number  of  streets  were 
graded,  among  them  being  Queen,  George,  William, 
Ferry,  Cherry  and  Frankfort  Streets.  Several  hills  in 
the  Montgomerie  Ward  were  razed,  and  such  thorough- 
fares as  Kleaft  and  Gold  Streets  were  made  more  level.2 
In  1774  the  board  conceived  the  ambitious  plan  of  level- 
ing Golden  Hill,  one  of  the  highest  elevations  on  lower 
Manhattan.  Objections  were  raised  by  a  number  of 
freeholders,  who  protested  that  their  houses  would  be 
demolished  if  such  a  step  were  taken ;  but  the  work  was 
ordered  by  the  common  council.3 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  25-26.    |".'  2  Ibid.,  pp.  337,  374. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  24,  26,  28. 


367]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

More  important  than  the  leveling  was  the  paving  of 
the  city  streets.  The  common  council  frequently  passed 
ordinances,  compelling  the  inhabitants  to  pave  and  keep 
in  repair  the  streets  in  front  of  their  respective  dwellings. 
The  dimensions  and  the  quality  of  the  paving  material 
were  prescribed  by  the  common  council,  the  expense 
of  this  work  being  paid  by  the  landlords  of  the  adjoining 
premises.1  The  first  of  these  ordinances  was  passed  in 
1731,  and  was  continued  throughout  the  colonial  period 
with  frequent  revisions.  After  1766  the  common  coun- 
cil showed  considerable  activity  in  paving  the  streets 
adjacent  to  public  buildings,  for  pavement  was  laid 
around  the  Fort,  and  around  Bowling  Green,  in  front  of 
the  City  Hall  and  of  Old  Slip  Market,  and  on  the  streets 
fronting  such  wharves  as  Burling's,  Peck's  and  Beekman's 
Slips. 

A  description  of  the  material  and  of  the  method  used 
in  paving  the  colonial  streets  is  found  from  various 
sources.  From  the  colonial  laws  we  learn  that  the 
pavement  consisted  of  "sufficient  Pebble  Stones."8 
Some  of  this  material  was  brought  from  places  outside 
of  New  York  city,  as  is  shown  by  the  order  in  the  min- 
utes to  pay  John  Smith  of  Westchester  the  sum  of  £9 
for  three  boatloads  of  paving  stone,  and  £30  for  "  sundry 
Boatloads"  in  I774-3  The  cobble  pavement  sloped  from 
both  sides  of  the  street,  at  a  descent  of  from  six  to  seven 
inches,  to  the  middle  or  channel  (also  written  canal, 
kennel),  which  was  left  unpaved,  as  an  open  gutter  to 
carry  off  surface  water.  As  none  of  the  ordinances  make 
mention  of  sidewalks,  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  were 
any,  unless  the  owners  of  the  abutting  property  volun- 
tarily undertook  this  improvement. 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  105.  *  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  p.  996. 

3  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  418 ;  vol.  viii,  p.  5. 


!<58       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [368 

Besides  grading  and  paving,  the  common  council  faced 
the  problem  of  street  cleaning.  According  to  an  ordi- 
nance of  1731,  all  inhabitants  residing  south  of  Fresh 
Water  Pond  were  ordered  to  sweep  together  on  Fridays 
all  the  dirt  in  the  streets  contiguous  to  their  houses.1 
This  refuse  was  carried  away  by  the  city  cartmen  at  the 
expense  of  the  citizens,  who  paid  seven  pence,  half-penny 
per  cart,  when  loaded  by  the  driver  himself,  or  four 
pence,  half-penny,  when  loaded  by  the  inhabitant. 

Several  other  ordinances  were  passed  to  free  the  streets 
from  encumbrances  and  filth.2  No  one  was  permitted  to 
obstruct  the  roads  with  such  material  as  stones,  bricks, 
planks  and  lumber.  These,  if  not  removed  within  a 
reasonable  time,  were  to  be  carted  away  to  the  alms- 
house,  and  there  to  be  sold,  and  the  proceeds  of  the  sale 
given  to  the  church  wardens.  This  ordinance  was  not 
to  interfere  with  any  person  who  was  engaged  in  repair- 
ing or  building  a  house.  Again,  everybody  was  pro- 
hibited from  throwing  garbage  or  ashes  into  the  streets, 
alleys,  or  lanes;  and  a  fine  of  405  was  laid  upon  any 
person  who  emptied  ordure  tubs  into  the  streets.3  In 
order  to  keep  the  channels  in  the  middle  of  the  streets 
clear,  no  one  was  permitted  to  sweep  dirt  into  them  on 
rainy  days ;  also  tanners  and  starchmakers  were  warned 
against  pouring  ill-smelling  water  into  these  drains. 

In  a  large  community  waste  matter  consists  of  sewage 
from  houses,  excrement,  garbage,  and  surface  water 
formed  from  rains  and  snows.  In  New  York  city 
today  the  problem  of  disposing  of  such  waste  is  solved 
by  conducting  it  through  drains  and  sewers  to  the  sur- 
rounding rivers  which  carry  it  off  to  sea.  The  same 

1M.  C.  C.,    vol.  iv,  pp.  102-104.  *  Mercury,  July  5,  1773. 

8M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  103-104. 


369]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS  169 

method  was  used  in  colonial  times,  the  Hudson  and  East 
Rivers  being  the  ultimate  depositories  for  the  refuse  from 
the  town.  As  no  sewers  for  getting  rid  of  excrement 
were  then  constructed,  all  waste  was  carried  at  night  in 
tubs  to  the  waterfront  and  from  there  thrown  into  the 
rivers.  This  unsanitary  custom  became  a  serious  menace 
when  docks  were  built,  as  the  wharves  became  covered 
with  putrefying  matter.  Surface  water  was  carried  off 
by  the  open  channels,  which  ran  through  the  streets  to 
the  common  sewer,  a  large  chute  extending  along  Broad 
Street,  from  the  Fly  Market  to  the  East  River.  At  first 
this  sewer  was  of  wood  and  without  any  covering,  so 
that  it  had  to  be  bridged  at  the  cross  streets,  but  later 
it  was  reenforced  with  stone  and  arched  with  heavy 
masonry.1  Several  other  stone  trunk  sewers  were  also  laid 
in  Wall  Street,  near  the  Meal  Market,  and  near  Peck's  Slip.2 
Also  certain  owners  of  houses  situated  near  the  water- 
edge  were  permitted  by  the  common  council  to  erect 
leaders,  which  drained  from  their  dwelling  directly  into 
the  river. 

We  are  now  confronted  with  several  questions,  such 
as :  How  successful  was  the  city  in  regulating  its 
streets  ?  Were  they  well  paved  ?  Were  they  kept  clean  ? 
Did  the  sewage  system  work  satisfactorily?  Judged  at 
the  time  when  the  period  under  review  begins,  these 
questions  would  all  have  been  answered  in  the  negative. 
At  the  close  of  the  same  period,  the  old  order  had  been 
changed,  for  a  remarkable  advance  in  municipal  sanita- 
tion took  place  between  1731  and  1775. 

The  streets  usually  made  a  favorable  impression  on 
those  who  visited  the  city.  Although  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton, a  traveler  from  Annapolis,  described  the  streets  as 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  191 ;  vol.  vii,  p.  337. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  370;  vol.  vii,  pp.  252,  257. 


I7o       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [370 

"  narrow  and  not  regular," '  a  more  careful  observer, 
Peter  Kalm,  stated  that  they  were  "very  spacious,  well- 
built,  and  most  of  them  paved  except  in  high  places, 
where  it  has  been  found  useless."  2  John  Adams,  who 
passed  through  the  city  in  1774  on  his  way  to  the  Con- 
tinental Congress,  characterized  the  streets  as  "  vastly 
more  regular  and  elegant  than  those  in  Boston."3  In 
fact  almost  all  authorities  agree  that  the  thoroughfares, 
in  later  years,  were  well  paved. 

At  first,  the  streets  were  not  kept  clean,  and  they,  as 
well  as  the  cellars  of  the  houses,  were  filled  with  refuse.4 
These  unsanitary  conditions  naturally  led  to  the  outbreaks 
of  sickness.  During  the  summer  of  1732  more  than  six 
per  cent  of  the  white  population  died.5  Again,  in  1741 
and  in  1742,  the  city  was  visited  by  severe  epidemics. 
The  relation  between  unclean  streets  and  these  ravages 
was  perceived  by  many  officers  of  the  government,  and 
steps  were  taken  to  remove  such  evils.  A  grand  jury 
called  attention  to  the  filthy  condition  of  Wall  Street  and 
recommended  that  the  dirt  and  puddles  of  water  be  re- 
moved before  the  coming  of  warm  weather.6  Again, 
Sheriff  Ayscough  in  1747  threatened  with  prosecution 
all  those  who  would  not  immediately  clear  their  doors 
and  the  channels  before  their  houses  of  oyster  shells  and 
other  offensive  substances.7  The  common  council  also 
exercised  its  police  power  to  pass  a  rigorous  ordinance 
which  commanded  not  only  that  all  streets  be  kept  clean, 
but  also  that  owners  maintain  their  premises  free  from 
filth.8  As  a  result  of  these  measures,  the  condition  of 

1  Hamilton,  Itinerarium,  p.  51.  2Kalm,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  248. 

5  Works  of  John  Adams  (Boston,  1850),  vol.  ii,  p.  348. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  119.  6  Gazette,  Nov.  15,  1732. 

6  Manuscript  in  Library  of  N.  Y.  Hist.  Society. 

1  Post-Boy,  March  2,  1747.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  118-121. 


371  ]  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

the  streets  improved.  No  further  complaints  regarding 
them  appear  in  later  years. 

Turning  aside  from  highways  to  byways,  we  refer  to 
the  development  of  the  first  public  park.  In  March 
1733,  the  common  council  leased  a  piece  of  land  at  the 
lower  end  of  Broadway,  directly  above  the  Fort,  to  John 
Chambers,  Peter  Bayard,  and  Peter  Jay,  to  be  "  Inclosed 
to  make  A  Bowling  Green  thereof  with  Walks  therein, 
for  the  Beauty  &  Ornament  of  Said  Street  as  well  as  for 
the  Recreation  &  delight  of  the  Inhabitants  of  this  City."  ' 
The  lessees  received  the  grant  in  payment  of  a  nominal 
sum  for  a  period  of  eleven  years.  When  the  lease  ex- 
pired it  was  renewed  for  the  same  period  of  time  at  an 
annual  rental  of  205.  This  time  the  lessees  were  John 
Chambers,  Colonel  Philipse,  and  John  Roosevelt.2  In 
March  1745,  the  lessees  proposed  to  cover  the  ground 
with  turf  in  order  to  put  it  in  suitable  condition  for  the 
bowling  matches  of  the  coming  summer.3  These  extracts 
dispose  of  the  more  or  less  common  belief  that  Bowling 
Green  dates  back  to  the  days  of  the  Dutch. 

In  May  1770,  the  little  park  was  further  improved  by 
the  setting  up  of  an  equestrian  statue  of  King  George 
III.4  As  early  as  1771,  certain  New  Yorkers  were  evi- 
dently not  manifesting  proper  respect  for  their  sov- 
ereign or  for  the  public  park,  for  we  learn  that  the  Green 
was  becoming  "  a  Receptacle  of  all  the  filth  &  dirt  of 
the  Neighbourhood."5  To  prevent  the  continuation  of 
these  conditions,  the  common  council  ordered  a  stone 
foundation  for  the  statue  and  an  iron  railing  for  the  Green. 
Furthermore,  the  provincial  legislature  felt  called  upon 
to  pass  an  act  which  threatened  any  person  who  willfully 
defaced  statues  in  New  York  city  with  a  fine  of  f  5oo.6 

\M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  174,  177-  *Ibid.,  p.  61. 

*  Post-Boy,  March  18,  1745.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  212-213. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  281,  290.  '  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  p.  457. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

OWING  to  the  insular  location  of  Manhattan,  ferry  fran- 
chises were  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  corporation  of 
New  York.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  following  chapter  on 
municipal  finance  that  they  proved  the  most  lucrative  source 
of  income,  at  times  reaching  the  sum  of  £970  annually. 
Still  the  ferry  rights  caused  deep  concern,  for  they  in- 
volved the  municipality  in  a  political  and  legal  contest  with 
the  town  of  Brooklyn.  This  struggle  was  carried  before 
the  executive,  the  legislature  and  the  judiciary  of  the  prov- 
ince, and  resulted  in  action  by  all  three  departments. 

Important  executive  grants  relating  to  ferries  were  made 
by  Governor  Montgomerie  in  his  charter  of  1731.  This 
gave  the  corporation  the  sole  right  "  of  Setling  appointing 
Establishing  Ordering  and  directing  .  .  .  Such  and  So 
many  fferrys  round  Manhattans  Island  alias  New  York 
Island  for  the  carrying  and  transporting  people  Horses 
Cattle  Goods  and  Chattells."  *  A  valuable  concession  was 
affirmed  in  the  same  charter,  which  granted  the  ferries  on 
both  sides  of  the  East  River,  with  all  the  vacant  ground  be- 
tween high  and  low  water  mark  on  that  part  of  Long 
Island  extending  from  the  east  side  of  the  Wallabout  to  the 
west  side  of  the  Red  Hook.2  This  cession,  which  included 
the  choicest  water  front  of  Brooklyn  at  Buttermilk  Channel, 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  613. 

'Kent,  Charter  of  New  York,  p.  211. 

172  [372 


373]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

gave  the  municipality  complete  control  over  ferries  across 
the  lower  part  of  the  East  River.1 

The  trustees  of  the  town  of  Brooklyn  were  incensed  be- 
cause of  this  transaction,  and  they  determined  to  break  the 
ferry  monopoly  by  appealing  to  the  provincial  authorities. 
They  could  expect  little  favor  from  the  executive,  since 
Governor  Montgomerie,  having  granted  this  concession,  was 
already  deeply  impressed  with  the  claims  of  New  York  city. 
But  they  could  appeal  to  the  legislature  of  the  province,  which 
possessed  an  undoubted  right  to  regulate  affairs  affecting 
the  Brooklyn  ferry.  Certainly  this  lay  entirely  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  colony  of  New  York.  Even  the  corpor- 
ation of  the  city  of  New  York  conceded  that  its  ferry  rights 
were  subject  to  revision  by  the  legislature.2  This  power 
was  exercised  in  1732  by  the  passage  of  an  act  which  fixed 
the  ferry  rates,  some  of  which  are  as  follows :  "  For  Trans- 
porting Every  Person  .  .  .  two  pence  in  Bills  of  Credit;" 
for  every  horse  or  beast  one  shilling  was  charged,  and  for 
every  coach  six  shillings.3  A  large  number  of  commodities 
together  with  their  corresponding  tolls  was  specified.  One 
curious  item  provided  that  for  every  hundred  eggs  the 
ferryman  was  permitted  to  exact  three  as  toll.  The  rates 
after  sunset  were  double  those  charged  during  the  day. 

The  same  law  contained  a  recognition  of  the  right  of 
Brooklyn  residents  to  use  their  own  boats  for  transporting 
themselves  and  their  personal  property  across  the  East  River, 
without  paying  ferriage  to  the  corporation.  This  was,  after 
all,  merely  a  reassertion  of  a  clause  in  the  Montgomerie 
Charter  which  conceded  to  those  persons  having  "  planta- 
tions by  the  water  Side  between  Wall-about  and  red  hook 

1  Benson  vs.  Mayor,  10  Barbour,  230-232. 

2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  20. 

8  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  807-813. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [374 

the  right  of  transporting  themselves  and  their  own  goods 
only  in  their  own  boats  from  and  to  their  respective  Dwell- 
ing or  plantations  without  paying  fferriage."  *  Thus  the 
right  of  the  inhabitants  of  Brooklyn  to  ferry  across  the  East 
River  in  their  own  boats,  was  clearly  established  both  by 
the  legislature,  in  the  ferry  act  of  1732,  and  by  the  executive 
in  the  city  charter  of  1731.  However,  the  corporation 
ignored  these  provisions  and  did  not  permit  persons  to  cross 
the  East  River  to  or  from  New  York  City  with  ferriage 
free,  even  if  they  went  in  their  own  boats. 

Pressure  was  exercised  upon  the  assembly  by  Brooklyn  in 
order  to  check  the  aggression  of  New  York.  Threats  to 
deprive  the  corporation  of  its  ferry  rights  and  even  of  its 
charter  were  made.  In  1737  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the 
lower  house,  calling  for  the  repeal  of  the  ferry  act  of  1732.  * 
During  the  debate,  James  Alexander  arose  in  defense  of  the 
city  and  delivered  a  speech  similar  to  those  so  often  heard 
in  our  legislative  halls  in  behalf  of  "  vested  interests."  He 
held  that  the  object  of  the  bill  was  to  divest  the  city  of  a 
legally  vested  right,  and  "  as  Things  of  that  Nature  are  of 
the  most  dangerous  Consequence,  and  tend  to  render  Prop- 
erty uncertain,"  he  moved  its  rejection.  The  house  in 
general  did  not  agree  with  him,  but  those  supporting  the 
city's  interests  succeeded  in  postponing  definite  action  on 
the  bill. 

Though  repulsed,  the  trustees  of  Brooklyn  maintained  a 
continuous  fight  against  the  ferry  monopoly,  and  in  1745 
made  a  vigorous  attempt  to  have  a  portion  of  the  provincial 
act  on  ferries  repealed.8  A  petition  was  presented  describ- 
ing the  hardships  of  those  inhabitants  of  Brooklyn  "  who 
were  debared  from  transporting  their  Goods  in  their  own 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  633.  J  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  i,  p.  730. 

3  Hoffman,  Treatise  on  the  Corporation,  p.  282. 


375]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

Vessels  to  the  said  [New  York]  Markets."  1  The  support- 
ers of  the  corporation's  interests  resorted  to  dilatory  tactics. 
Upon  the  motion  of  Major  Van  Home,  representative  of 
New  York  city,  the  common  council  was  served  with  a 
copy  of  the  petition.2  Daniel  Horsmanden,  recorder  of  the 
city,  and  Joseph  Murray  were  retained,  with  the  result  that 
action  by  the  legislature  was  postponed  until  the  follow- 
ing year. 

The  same  subject  was  revived  in  April  1746,  when  a 
bill  to  secure  ferry  rights  for  Brooklyn  was  presented  to 
the  house.3  It  passed  the  first  reading,  but  at  the  request 
of  Captain  Richards  from  New  York  city  the  second  read- 
ing was  deferred  till  the  next  meeting.  Despite  the  argu- 
ments of  Colonel  Morris,  the  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote 
of  nine  to  eight,  and  the  bill  was  then  sent  to  the  legis- 
lative council.4  But  Horsmanden  was  a  member  of  this 
body,  and  probably  through  his  efforts  the  bill  was  rejected.5 

While  seeking  to  gain  redress  in  the  legislature,  the 
Brooklyn  trustees  also  turned  to  the  judiciary,  and  through 
one  of  their  number,  Hendrick  Remsen,  brought  suit  against 
the  corporation  of  New  York.  This  case  is  important  in 
the  legal  annals  of  New  York,  because  of  the  significant 
principle  involved,  the  array  of  legal  talent  engaged  by  both 
parties,  and  the  length  of  the  litigation.  The  suit  was 
brought  to  decide  whether  an  inhabitant  of  Brooklyn  pos- 
sessed the  right  to  cross  the  East  River  in  his  own  boat,  or 
whether  the  corporation  had  complete  control  over  all  forms 
of  ferriage.  To  uphold  its  grants,  New  York  city  retained 

1  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  93. 

•M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  166. 

*  Assemb.  Jour.,  vol.  ii,  p.  103. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  117,  118-119. 

5  Jour.  Legis.  Coun.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  936,  954-955- 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [376 

James  Alexander,  John  Chambers  and  Joseph  Murray.1 
Brooklyn  was  successful  in  securing  as  counsel  William 
Smith.  For  thirty  years  the  case  of  Hendrick  Remsen  vs. 
Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New 
York  was  before  the  courts,  and  the  controversy  terminated 
only  with  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution. 

The  cause  for  the  action  originated  in  June  1743,  when 
the  ferryman  demanded  2s  id  from  Hendrick  Remsen  for 
transporting  himself  and  goods  in  his  own  boat.2  Alderman 
Simon  Johnson,  after  hearing  both  parties,  rendered  judg- 
ment against  Remsen,  and  ordered  him  to  pay  the  ferry 
charges  with  costs.  This  he  refused  to  do,  and  so  was 
ordered  to  be  committed  to  jail.  In  December  Remsen  sued 
the  city,  William  Smith  acting  as  his  counsel.3  The  case 
was  transferred  to  Westchester,  for  it  was  believed  im- 
possible to  secure  an  impartial  jury  for  this  case  in  Kings 
County.4  In  July  1744,  the  suit  came  before  a  trial  jury 
in  Westchester.  A  special  verdict  was  found  for  the  plain- 
tiff on  the  grounds  that  "  the  East  River  over  which  the 
said  Henrick  did  carry  the  persons  and  goods  aforesaid, 
from  the  said  lands  between  the  Wallabout  and  the  Red 
Hook,  is  a  large  and  public  and  navigable  river  used  by 
his  Majesty's  ships  and  by  other  ships  and  smaller  vessels 
employed  in  trade  and  commerce,  and  hath  always  been  so 
used  from  the  first  settlement  of  this  Colony."  5 

On  a  writ  of  error,  the  case  was  carried  to  the  supreme 
court.  The  corporation  based  its  defense  on  charter  rights, 
while  Brooklyn  claimed  that  even  the  charter  of  New  York 
recognized  unrestricted  transportation  across  the  East  River. 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  iro-iii. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  89-90.  8  Ibid.,  pp.  no-no. 

*  Parchment  roll  no.  P.  230  -  c  4,  county  clerk's  office. 
5  Furman,  Notes,  Geographical  and  Historical  relating  to  the  Town 
of  Brooklyn,  on  Long-Island,  pp.  26-27. 


377]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

The  claims  of  New  York  to  the  land  between  high  and  low 
water  mark  on  the  Brooklyn  shore  were  also  denied.  It 
was  claimed  by  counsel  for  Hendrick  Remsen  that  the  char- 
ters, issued  to  New  York  city  by  Governors  Dongan  and 
Montgomerie,  were  subsequent  to  the  grants  of  the  water 
front  on  Long  Island  made  by  Director  Kieft  in  the  Dutch 
period.  Hence  it  was  argued  that  there  was  no  vacant  or 
unappropriated  land  between  high  and  low  water  mark  on 
the  Brooklyn  shore.  The  case  thus  continued  for  a  num- 
ber of  years. 

While  still  concerned  in  the  suit,  Hendrick  Remsen  ap- 
parently sought  a  settlement.  Negotiations  were  opened  re- 
lative to  a  ferry  from  his  property,  known  as  Remsen's 
Island,  to  a  point  near  a  pier  of  the  corporation.1  A  num- 
ber of  New  York  citizens  favored  such  a  ferry  and  expressed 
this  sentiment  in  a  petition  to  the  common  council.  Hear- 
ings on  this  matter  were  repeatedly  postponed  until,  in  May 
1754,  the  request  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  ten  to  five.2  After 
Remsen's  death,  the  common  council  apparently  tried  to 
disengage  his  heirs  from  the  case  by  granting  them  a  water 
lot  fronting  their  land  on  Long  Island,  this  of  course  in- 
cluding docking  privileges.3 

After  thirty-two  years  of  litigation,  the  supreme  court 
in  1775  gave  Hendrick  Remsen's  heirs  a  judgment  of  £118, 
145  lod  against  New  York  city.4  According  to  the  de- 
cision, Remsen  or  any  other  resident  of  Brooklyn  had  the 
privilege  of  maintaining  a  boat  on  the  East  River  and  of 
landing  at  any  point  of  the  Long  Island  shore,  provided  he 
received  permission  of  the  owner.  This  verdict  consider- 

1  Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  444;  vi,  p.  247. 
z  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  442-443,  450,  452-453- 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  343. 
4  Parchment  roll,  P  230  -c  4. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

ably  limited  the  exclusive  ferry  rights  claimed  by  the  New 
York  corporation.  The  city  made  an  appeal  to  the  Privy 
Council  early  in  1776,  but  no  action  was  taken  because  of 
the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution.1  The  decision  of  the  su- 
preme court  was  undoubtedly  just,  for  the  Montgomerie 
Charter  to  New  York  gave  the  privileges  claimed  by  Brook- 
lyn, but  New  York  city  had  for  many  years  successfully 
violated  the  rights  guaranteed  to  its  neighbor. 

There  was  only  one  authorized  ferry  to  Brooklyn.  We 
shall  now  consider  its  administration  at  length.  As  in  the 
case  of  the  docks,  the  corporation,  instead  of  operating  the 
ferry,  leased  it  to  individuals.  About  every  five  years,  the 
common  council  advertised  the  auction  of  the  ferry  fran- 
chise, and  it  was  awarded  to  the  highest  bidder,  who  paid  a 
specific  rental  every  three  months,  and  in  return  was  allowed 
to  keep  all  revenues  arising  from  the  ferry.2  To  insure  the 
fulfillment  of  the  lease,  the  tenant  was  obliged  to  deposit  a 
bond  of  £1000.  Although  many  violations  of  the  terms  of 
the  lease  occurred,  this  deposit  was  never  declared  forfeited. 
The  main  burden  imposed  upon  the  lessee  was  the  require- 
ment that  he  maintain  the  ferry  boats  at  his  own  expense. 
In  no  case  did  the  corporation  expend  money  for  such  pur- 
pose. The  boats  were  not  expensive,  for  they  were  usually 
made  of  heavy,  broad  boards,  with  flat  bottoms,  and  seldom 
had  keels.  They  were  navigated  by  oars,  and  by  one  or  two 
sails.  The  cost  of  operation  was  low,  for  the  boats  were 
manned  usually  by  negro  slaves.8  In  time,  other  ferries  be- 
sides the  one  in  Brooklyn  were  established,  but  none  was 
ever  operated  by  the  municipality.  How  satisfactory  this- 
plan  proved,  will  be  apparent  from  the  following  survey. 

1  Furman,  op.  cit.,  p.  27. 

*Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  175-176,  408-409. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  461 ;  v,  p.  360. 


379]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

The  first  lessee,  within  the  period  under  review,  was 
Theophilus  Elsworth,  who  secured  the  Brooklyn  ferry  rights 
at  an  annual  rental  of  £258.1  In  1733,  when  Elsworth's 
lease  expired,  it  was  renewed  with  the  rent  reduced  to  £245. 2 
A  difference  concerning  the  matter  of  repairs  arose  between 
Elsworth  and  the  common  council.  The  latter  insisted 
that  all  repairs  were  to  be  made  at  the  expense  of  the  lessee, 
but,  soon  after  Elsworth's  lease  was  renewed,  the  common 
council  voted  £74  145  3d  for  repairs  on  the  ferry  house, 
the  barn  and  the  "  bridge."  3  Several  months  later,  it  paid 
£21  for  beams,  planks  and  shingles  for  repairing  the  ferry 
houses,  and  added  £6  to  the  bill  for  liquor  consumed  by  the 
workmen.4  During  all  this  time,  the  lessee  failed  to  main- 
tain the  ferry  buildings  in  good  order.  A  committee  of  the 
common  council  reported  that  they  conceived  "  it  to  be 
Mr.  Elsworth's  Duty  at  his  own  Charge  to  Repair  the 
Landing  Bridge  &c;  if  any  thing  is  wanting  or  Necessary 
to  be  done,  and  that  the  City  Ought  not  pay  or  Contribute 
towards  the  Expence  thereof." 5  Notwithstanding  this 
statement,  Elsworth  refused  to  make  repairs,  and  as  a  re- 
sult the  property  fell  into  a  wretched  condition.6 

The  financial  relations  between  the  corporation  and  Wil- 
liam Cornell,  the  lessee  succeeding  Elsworth,  were  also  un- 
satisfactory. Though  the  rent  was  increased  to  £310,  which 
was  £65  higher  than  Elsworth  had  paid,  this  was  not  clear 
profit  to  the  corporation.7  In  view  of  this  increment,  the 
common  council  assumed  the  entire  burden  of  restoring  the 
ferry  buildings  on  Long  Island,  and  allowed  Cornell  quite  a 
sum  for  "  dieting  of  Workmen  &  Labourers,  Labourers 

1Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  430.  'Ibid.,  voL  iv,  p.  175. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  187-188.  *Ibid.,  p.  202. 

*Ibid.,  p.  342.  6Ibid.,  p.  418. 
7  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  408. 


!8o       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [380 

Wages,  Moneys  paid  for  quit  Rent,  Expences  of  the  Com- 
mittee mending  of  Glass  Windows  and  ferriage."  x  The 
ferry  master  was  also  relieved  of  the  expense  of  maintain- 
ing a  landing  on  the  New  York  side,  as  several  citizens  living 
near  the  market  house  at  Clark's  Slip  agreed  to  make  all 
necessary  improvements.2  Even  this  public  and  private  aid 
did  not  satisfy  Cornell,  for  in  1739,  upon  his  petition,  he  re- 
ceived a  reduction  of  £65  from  his  rent  to  reimburse  him  for 
losses  sustained  by  "  the  Spreading  of  Small  Pox,  which 
deters  both  strangers  and  Travellers  from  Coming  to  Town, 
and  the  Country  People  from  Coming  to  Market  as  Usual."8 

The  practice  of  repairing  the  ferry  house  at  public  ex- 
pense was  continued  under  Richard  Baker,  the  next  holder 
of  the  lease.  In  August  1743,  the  common  council  appro- 
priated £38  for  general  repairs,  and  again  in  November, 
£22  for  glazing,  painting  and  iron  work.  The  following 
July,  £66  was  granted  to  Baker  for  "  Dyett  of  the  Work- 
men and  Ferriage  of  Materialls  Employed  in  Repairing  the 
Ferry  house."  4 

Upon  the  death  of  Richard  Baker,  his  widow  informed 
the  common  council  that  she  was  willing  to  surrender  the 
lease,  provided  it  were  granted  to  Edward  Willet.5  The 
latter  was  successful  in  securing  the  lease,  but  was  unfor- 
tunate in  operating  the  ferry  at  the  time  that  New  York  and 
Brooklyn  were  engaged  in  their  dispute  before  the  courts. 
Traffic  on  the  ferry  had  also  been  reduced  by  an  epidemic 
of  yellow  fever  in  the  city.'  For  these  reasons,  Willet 
petitioned  for  an  abatement,  and  the  common  council  rec- 
ognized the  justice  of  his  claim  by  subtracting  £160  from 
his  rent.  Notwithstanding  this  concession,  Willet  was  far 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  453.  'Ibid.,  pp.  413-414. 

'Ibid.,  pp.  460-461.  4 Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  123. 

''Ibid.,  pp.  139-140.  6Ibid.,  p.  190. 


381]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND          jgi 

in  arrears.1  In  1747  the  lease  was  transferred  to  Daniel 
Bloom,  at  an  annual  rental  of  £45 5. 2 

In  1748  the  ferry  houses  on  the  Long  Island  side  were 
totally  destroyed  by  a  fire  which,  according  to  New  York 
citizens,  was  started  by  inhabitants  of  Brooklyn  in  revenge 
for  their  defeat  before  the  legislature.3  The  common 
Council  without  delay  planned  to  erect  a  two-story  stone 
house,  forty  by  fifty  feet  in  dimension,  on  a  site  bought  of 
one  John  Suydam  for  £275.*  As  much  material  had  to  be 
ferried  across  the  river,  the  cost  of  the  building  was  thereby 
increased.  The  purchasing  of  supplies  and  the  hiring  of 
workmen  were  undertaken  by  a  committee  of  the  common 
council  which  met  to  accept  bids  every  Thursday  afternoon, 
from  four  o'clock  to  seven.5  The  supervision  of  the  con- 
struction was  entrusted  to  Assistant  Alderman  Henry 
Bogert,  through  whom  several  hundred  pounds  were  ex- 
pended for  materials  and  labor.6  The  actual  construction, 
such  as  the  laying  of  beams,  building  the  roof,  and  com- 
pleting the  mason  work,  was  entrusted  to  Daniel  and  Peter 
Giraud.7 

While  the  corporation  was  spending  hundreds  of  pounds 
upon  the  ferry,  it  received  poor  returns.  David  Bloom 
paid  his  rent  very  irregularly,  although  it  had  been  reduced 
in  order  to  compensate  him  for  losses  sustained  in  the  fire.8 
Even  then  the  corporation  found  it  impossible  to  collect  £50 
of  his  rent  still  due.  In  addition,  he  operated  so  few  boats 
that  the  common  council  threatened  to  forfeit  his  lease,  if 
he  failed  to  "  keep  and  maintain  a  Scow,  a  horse  boat  and 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  240.  *Ibid.,  p.  215. 

9  Manual  (1862),  p.  544. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  220,  222-223. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  263.  •  Ibid.,  p.  361. 

7  Ibid.,  pp.  295,  297.  8  Ibid.,  p.  303. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [382 

three  other  boats."  *  By  the  time  his  lease  had  half  expired, 
Bloom,  because  of  his  difficulties,  asked  permission  to  trans- 
fer his  ferry  rights  to  Andrew  Ramsey.2 

In  September  1750,  this  change  was  sanctioned  by  the 
common  council,  but,  mindful  of  disagreements  with  pre- 
vious lessees,  it  demanded  definite  guarantees  of  the  new 
tenant.  He  was  always  to  keep  at  least  one  scow  and  one 
boat  on  the  New  York  side  of  the  ferry.  Vessels  were  to 
come  to  shore  at  the  dock  between  Rodman's  Slip  and  the 
landing  at  the  foot  of  Wall  Street;  but,  after  dark,  the 
ferryman  might  land  his  passengers  at  any  convenient  place. 
Later,  Ramsey  was  compelled  to  see  that  "  one  of  the  said 
boats  shall  (wind  and  weather  permitting)  be  constantly 
passing  and  repassing  the  said  ferry,  and  that  two  boats 
shall  not  remain  on  the  same  side  of  the  river  at  any  one 
time."  3  Misfortune  befell  the  lessee,  for  he  lost  two*  ne- 
groes and  two  boats.4  Ramsay  applied  for  compensation, 
but  in  this  case  no  action  was  taken  by  the  common  council. 

In  1753  the  lease  was  granted  to  Jacob  Brewerton  and 
later  it  was  renewed.5  Affairs  between  Brewerton  and  the 
corporation  were  very  favorable  for  the  former.  The  erec- 
tion of  the  ferry  house  was  still  in  progress,  and  workmen 
employed  by  the  city  were  boarded  with  Brewerton,  who  on 
one  occasion  received  over  £99  for  such  service.6  While 
Brewerton  held  the  lease,  the  corporation  even  paid  for  the 
illumination  of  the  ferry  house.7  Again,  his  rent  was  re- 
duced by  £  1 80  in  1767  for  "  encroachments  made  upon  the 
rights  of  the  ferry  by  the  Army."  8  The  most  significant 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  251.  */&«/.,  p.  306. 

8  Stiles,  History  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  etc.  (Albany,  1863),  vol.  iii, 
p.  526. 

*  M .  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  pp.  360,  366.  6  Ibid.,  p.  392 ;  vi,  p.  122. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  441.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  232. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  57. 


383]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

precedent  which  Brewerton  established  was  the  shifting  of 
town  and  county  taxes  to  the  corporation.  In  1754  the 
common  council  allowed  the  lessee  over  £25  to  compensate 
him  for  taxes  on  the  ferry  property  on  Long  Island,  collected 
by  Kings  County.1  Thereafter,  these  taxes  were  regularly 
paid  by  the  corporation.  In  addition  to  the  provincial  tax, 
the  city  of  New  York  was  compelled  to  pay  also  a  consider- 
able sum  to  Brooklyn,  as  the  ferry  property  lay  entirely 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  latter.  This  tax  was  always 
paid  grudgingly,  and  we  read  that  "  the  mayor  Acquainted 
this  Board  that  the  Buildings  and  Interest  of  this  City  at  the 
fferry  were  Extravagantly  Assessed  by  the  Assessors  of  the 
Township  of  Brookland  in  a  higher  proportion  than  other 
Estates  in  the  Neighbourhood."  z  A  committee  was  ap- 
pointed to  consult  with  counsel  in  order  to  secure  redress 
for  the  alleged  excessive  assessment. 

In  the  next  few  years  several  lessees  of  the  ferry  followed 
In  quick  succession.  An  innovation  was  made  in  dividing 
the  privileges  between  two  holders,  Captain  Francis  Koffler 
and  William  Pontine.3  This  double  lease  system  lasted 
three  years,  after  which  the  sole  rights  were  given  to  Samuel 
Waldron  for  £66o.4  When,  in  1770,  his  term  was  about  to 
expire,  Waldron  requested  a  renewal  without  the  usual  pub- 
lic auction.5  Although  such  procedure  was  contrary  to  all 
practice,  the  common  council  agreed  to  it,  and  rented  the 
ferry  at  the  low  figure  of  £550."  Two  years  later  Waldron 
died,  and  upon  the  petition  of  Nicholas  P.  Bogart  the  lease 
was  transferred  to  him.7  For  some  unknown  reason,  Bogart 
did  not  accept  the  lease,  and  the  ferry  rights  were  given  to 
Adolph  Waldron. 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  205.  J  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  234. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  329.  4Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  14. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  246.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  260-261. 
7  Ibid.,  pp.  352,  354- 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [384 

When  Waldron's  lease  expired  in  1774,  several  changes  in 
the  operation  of  the  ferry  were  discussed  by  the  common 
council.  Common  Councilman  Benjamin  Huggit  proposed 
to  abandon  the  policy  of  leasing  the  ferry,  and  instead  to 
have  the  city  operate  it,  appointing  some  one  to  superintend 
the  ferry  boats  on  the  New  York  side.1  This  very  sensible 
plan  was  defeated,  but  the  suggestion  to  increase  the  number 
of  ferries  between  New  York  and  Brooklyn  was  accepted. 
It  was  decided  to  form  three,  one  from  Coenties  Slip,  a 
second  from  Peck's  Slip,  and  a  third  from  Fly  Slip.  Three 
separate  teases,  each  of  two  years'  duration,  were  executed 
in  March  1774:  the  first  to  Elisha  De  Grushe,  for  £20;  the 
second  to  Samuel  Baldwin  for  £120;  the  third,  including  the 
ferry  house,  to  Adolph  Waldron  for  £230.  The  new  lessees 
were  expected  to  provide  boats  at  their  own  expense,  as 
follows :  "  the  one,  that  purchases  the  middle  ferry,  to  pro- 
vide six  Boats  four  Large  ones  &  two  small  ones,  and  the 
two  others  that  purchases  the  upper  &  Lower  f  errys  to  pro- 
vide two  Large  &  one  small  Boats."  The  leases  were  all 
granted  upon  the  express  condition  that  no  reduction  of 
rent  should  be  allowed  by  the  common  council.  There- 
fore, when  Waldron  made  such  a  request,  it  was  promptly 
refused.3  Waldron,  however,  deemed  it  profitable  to  renew 
his  lease.4  The  rights  to  the  ferry  from  Peck  Slip  went 
to  Thomas  Ivory  for  £60. 

From  the  facts  above,  the  reader  must  be  impressed  with 
the  failure  of  the  plan  of  leasing  the  ferry  rights  to  in- 
dividuals. Seldom  was  the  rent  fully  paid,  for  almost  every 
lessee  secured  an  abatement.  Again,  the  expense  of  main- 
taining the  ferry  buildings  in  good  order,  and  the  payment 
of  taxes,  finally  devolved  upon  the  corporation.  The  only 

1 M .  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  6-7.  2  Ibid.,  p.  7. 

'Ibid.,  p.  79.  *Ibid.,  p.  134. 


385]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND          ^5 

real  burden  imposed  upon  the  ferryman  was  the  supplying 
of  boats.  The  laxity  of  service  is  well  brought  out  in  a 
petition  which  complains  of  "  wearisome  delays  "  at  the 
ferry.  Surely  the  net  revenue  to  the  corporation  would 
have  been  increased,  had  Common  Councilman  Huggit's  sug- 
gestion been  adopted.  The  gros^  income  from  the  ferry 
must  have  been  large,  for  the  monopoly  of  transportation 
across  the  East  River  was  complete,  since  the  common 
council  for  many  years  steadfastly  refused  to  permit  com- 
petition by  the  establishing  of  more  ferries  to  Brooklyn.1 

For  many  years  the  ferry  to  Brooklyn  was  the  only  one 
operating  from  New  York  city.  An  attempt  was  made  to 
establish  a  ferry  other  than  on  the  East  River  in  1742,  when 
Francis  Covenhoven  and  Samuel  Bayard  petitioned  for 
privilege  to  establish  a  ferry  to  Weehawken,  a  community 
on  the  Jersey  shore  of  the  Hudson  River.2  The  common 
council  deferred  action  indefinitely  and  then  dropped  the 
matter.  The  subject  was  revived  in  1753,  when  two  peti- 
tions were  presented  to  the  common  council.  John  Elli- 
son sought  the  sole  right  of  ferrying  from  the  Half  Moon 
Battery  on  Manhattan  to  Dominie's  Hook  on  the  Jersey 
shore,  for  a  period  of  seven  years  at  a  reasonable  rental.8 
A  month  later,  several  citizens  of  the  South  Ward  asked  the 
corporation  to  establish  a  ferry  to  Harsimus  from  the  foot 
of  Pearl  Street  on  the  Hudson  River.*  No  immediate  ac- 
tion was  taken  on  either  of  them. 

In  time,  outside  pressure  compelled  the  common  council 
to  adopt  a  more  liberal  policy  concerning  additional  ferries. 
Residents  of  Staten  Island  secured  from  the  crown  the  grant 
of  a  ferry  to  New  York  city,  and  in  1755  the  common 
council  deemed  it  advisable  to  concede  them  ferry  privi- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  247,  252.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  67. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  394.  *  Ibid.,  p.  395- 


!86       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [386 

leges  for  a  term  of  five  years.1  Ten  years  later,  Archibald 
Kennedy,  collector  of  the  port,  and  William  McAdams  peti- 
tioned for  the  exclusive  right  of  ferriage  across  the  Hudson 
to  New  Jersey,  and  after  a  year's  consideration  the  request 
was  granted.2 

The  board  had  deferred  action  on  Kennedy's  petition  be- 
cause of  the  opposition  of  Cornelius  Van  Voorst,  a  resident 
of  Bergen  County,  New  Jersey.  This  man  claimed  that  the 
exclusive  grant  to  any  one  other  than  himself  constituted 
an  injury  to  him,  as  he  had  erected  a  ferry  at  Paulus  Hook, 
New  Jersey,  and  had  constructed  long  roadways  to  it.8 
Therefore,  he  requested  landing  privileges  on  the  New  York 
side.  After  deliberation,  the  common  council  agreed  to 
give  Van  Voorst  ferriage  rights  for  seven  years  at  a  rental 
of  £40  per  annum.4  He  was  permitted  to  charge  only  such 
rates  as  the  board  fixed,  and,  after  the  expiration  of  his 
lease,  he  was  to  give  the  corporation  free  use  of  his  landing 
in  New  Jersey.  The  lessee  was  to  operate  three  large  and 
two  small  boats  between  his  land  and  the  pier  of  Nicholas 
Roosevelt  at  the  lower  end  of  Thomas  (now  Cortlandt) 
Street.  These  arrangements  lasted  only  a  short  time. 

In  March  1767,  the  ferry  to  Paulus  Hook  was  rented 
at  auction  to  Jacob  Van  Voorhis  of  New  York  city  for  £310 
yearly.5  This  was  covered  by  a  bond  of  £1240.  Question 
arose  as  to  the  location  of  the  landing  on  the  New  York 
side,  as  Alderman  Nicholas  Roosevelt  insisted  that  only  his 
dock  which  had  been  used  by  Van  Voorst  should  be  used  by 
the  next  lessee.6  A  majority  of  the  common  council 
thought  otherwise,  and  Van  Voorhis  was  given  liberty  to 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  47;  Calendar  of  Council  Minutes,  p.  367. 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  417;  vii,  pp.  2,  8. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  436.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  8. 

6 Ibid.,  p.  62.  'Ibid.,  pp.  61-62. 


387]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

land  at  any  point  between  what  are  now  Cortlandt  and  Dey 
Streets.  The  lessee  of  the  New  Jersey  ferry  soon  followed 
the  practice  of  the  Brooklyn  ferrymen  by  asking  for  a  re- 
duction of  rent.  His  plea  was  that  the  "  Road  across  the 
meadow  Between  Powluses  Hook  in  New  Jersey,  and  the 
upland  is  at  Some  times  Rendered  impassible  for  foot  pas- 
sengers on  account  of  Spring  tides  overflowing  the  same, 
to  the  Great  Inconveniency  of  Travellers  in  Generall  and 
to  Your  Tennants  in  particular  by  Lessning  the  Revenue 
of  the  ferry."  *  In  March  1769,  financial  relief  was  again 
sought  from  the  common  council.2  The  petition  disclosed 
the  fact  that  Voorhis'  partners  in  the  ferry  enterprise  were 
Abraham  Bussing  and  Peter  and  Abraham  Mesier.  In  1771 
the  last  mentioned  secured  the  lease  in  his  own  name  at  the 
reduced  rental  of  £120,  and  three  years  later  he  secured  a 
renewal  at  £2io.8 

A  ferry  to  Hoboken  was  the  last  to  be  established  during 
the  colonial  period.  In  February  1775,  the  common  coun- 
cil granted  Harmanus  Talman  permission  to  land  boats  at 
the  Bear  Market  in  the  North  River,  for  which  concession 
the  corporation  was  to  receive  £50.*  Talman  soon  entered 
into  active  competition  with  Mesier's  ferry  to  Paulus  Hook, 
and  the  latter  lost  so  much  traffic  that  the  common  council 
allowed  a  reduction  of  £50  on  his  rent.8 

Besides  the  public  ferrymen,  several  private  individuals 
operated  boats  across  the  Hudson  to  Hoboken,  Staten  Island 
and  Elizabethtown.6  Competition  was  keen,  and  occasion- 
ally unfair  tactics  were  employed  by  rival  owners.  This  is 
evident  from  the  following  statement  of  a  ferryman  who 
complains  that  his  competitor  "  told  a  gentleman,  who  with 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vii,  p.  74.  *Ibid.,  pp.  114-115. 

*Ibid.,  p.  268;  viii,  p.  12.  4  Ibid.,  p.  78. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  140.  '  Manual  (1862),  p.  546. 


!88       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [388 

five  others,  was  going  to  my  ferry  that  there  was  no  boat 
there,  where  at  the  time  I  had  two  boats  at  Whitehall,  by 
which  unfair  practices  he  has  stopped  many  passengers  at 
his  ferry  who  were  going  to  mine."  1 

Ferryboats  in  the  early  days  were  none  too  safe,  and 
accidents  frequently  occurred.  In  October  1764,  a  vessel 
belonging  to  one  Johnston,  on  its  way  to  Staten  Island  with 
passengers,  horses  and  carriages,  upset  and  two  men  were 
lost.2  The  owner  attributed  the  accident  to  the  interference 
of  the  passengers  in  the  sailing  and  steering  of  the  vessel, 
and  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  such  misfortunes  Johnston 
promised  to  balance  his  boats  with  wood,  thus  making  them 
more  seaworthy.8 

An  idea  of  the  hardships  attending  traveling  by  ferry 
may  be  had  in  the  experience  of  Baron  De  Kalb.  In  Janu- 
ary 1768,  while  crossing  to  Staten  Island,  the  scow  in  which 
he  was,  grounded  on  a  sand  bar/  The  passengers  were 
forced  to  wait  until  morning  before  they  could  complete 
their  trip.  From  this  exposure  several  died,  and  some 
were  so  frozen  that  they  lost  toes  or  fingers. 

Traffic  on  the  ferries  across  the  Hudson  varied.  It  was 
probably  lightest  to  Weehawken,  which  is  located  opposite 
the  present  42d  street.  The  boats  to  Hoboken  were  intended 
to  carry  produce  to  the  city  markets.  Those  to  Paulus 
Hook  were  both  for  passenger  and  freight  service,  and 
were  used  especially  in  stormy  weather,  since  they  offered 
the  shortest  water  journey.5  As  the  stage-coach  route  from 
New  York  city  to  Philadelphia  passed  through  Staten 

1  Gazette,  June  30,  1764. 

*  Mercury,  Oct.  15,  1764.  *  Ibid.,  Oct.  29,  1764. 

4  Watson,  Annals  and  Occurrences  of  New  York  City  and  State 
(Phila.,  1846),  p.  188. 

5 Gazette,  July  5,  1764;  Clute,  Annals  of  Staten  Island  (New  York, 
1877),  vol.  i,  p.  73. 


389]       FERRIES  OF  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

Island,  the  ferry  from  that  place  was  intended  primarily  to 
carry  passengers. 

Thus  we  see  that,  before  1730,  New  York  city  had  but 
one  public  ferry.  By  1776  at  least  half  a  dozen  were  pay- 
ing rent  to  the  corporation  and  were  carrying  passengers  to 
and  from  all  the  nearby  shores.  In  addition  several  private 
ferries  were  competing  with  these  for  traffic  across  the  ad- 
joining waters.  This  alone  is  an  indication  of  the  growth 
in  importance  of  Manhattan  during  the  later  colonial  period. 


«  CHAPTER  IX 

FINANCE 

* '  '  " 

IN  previous  chapters  the  various  undertakings  of  the  city 
government  have  been  described.  We  have  seen  the  work- 
ings of  the  municipal  political  machinery,  the  methods  of 
dealing  with  criminals,  paupers  and  other  dependents,  the 
ways  of  preserving  public  safety,  and  the  manner  of  oper- 
ating such  quasi-public  enterprises  as  wharves,  ferries, 
markets  and  waterworks.  In  this  chapter  the  same  activi- 
ties will  again  be  considered,  but  this  time  from  the  view- 
point of  their  financial  management. 

Although  the  chapter  is  mainly  a  study  of  the  sources  of 
municipal  revenue,  it  is  well  to  begin  with  a  statement  of  the 
leading  items  of  expenditure  and  with  a  description  of  the 
machinery  for  the  collection  of  the  city's  funds.  Some- light 
has  already  been  shed  upon  the  disbursements  of  the  city 
government.  The  amount  paid  to  maintain  the  watch  and 
the  fire  department  was  stated  above,  and  the  cost  of  con- 
structing and  operating  such  public  properties  as  the 
City  Hall,  the  poorhouse,  the  hospital,  the  jails,  the  docks 
and  the  ferries  was  also  shown.  These  charges  need  not 
be  repeated  here  and  our  study  of  municipal  expenditures 
may  therefore  be  limited  to  one  field,  the  cost  of  operating 
the  government. 

Although  the  municipality,   to-day,   spends  millions   of 

dollars  annually  in  salaries  for  its  officers,  in  the  colonial 

period  the  pay  roll  was  almost  a  negligible  factor.     Few  of 

the  higher  officials  of  the  city  received  salaries,  since  they 

190  [390 


391]  FINANCE  I9I 

were  re-embursed  through  fees  which  were  paid  either  by 
the  corporation,  or,  as  was  more  frequently  the  case,  by  the 
person  for  whom  the  service  was  rendered.  The  mayor, 
the  recorder,  the  treasurer,  and  other  officeholders  were  paid 
in  this  manner.  Salaries  were  paid  to  many  of  the  minor 
municipal  officers.  The  public  whipper,  the  keeper  of  the 
prison,  the  custodian  of  the  poorhouse,  the  supervisor  of  the 
watch,  and  occasionally  the  watchmen,  the  overseer  of  the 
fire  engines,  the  schoolmaster,  and  the  town  clerk  received 
regular  wages.  Payments  were  usually  made  quarterly  or 
semi-annually,  and  it  will  be  recalled  from  preceding  chap- 
ters that  the  amounts  were  seldom  high. 

Besides  financing  municipal  undertakings  and  paying  the 
salaries  of  the  minor  officers,  the  city  treasury  was  called 
upon  to  meet  a  number  of  miscellaneous  expenses.  Print- 
ing and  stationery  formed  no  insignificant  item.  For  en- 
grossing the  Montgomerie  Charter  on  parchment  the  sum 
of  £29  was  appropriated,  and  later  the  common  council 
ordered  copies  of  this  grant  printed  for  distribution  among 
the  public.1  Likewise,  a  volume  containing  the  municipal 
ordinances  and  all  the  laws  of  the  province  relating  to  the 
city  was  published.2  Occasionally  important  ordinances  of 
the  common  council  were  inserted  in  the  columns  of  the 
local  newspapers.  The  cost  of  these  public  advertisements 
is  illustrated  in  one  warrant  allowing  John  Holt,  the  printer, 
£9  for  advertising  three  by-laws.3  This  patronage  was  usu- 
ally bestowed  upon  a  printer  favored  by  the  political  faction 
then  dominating  the  common  council.  Before  1734  Wil- 
liam Bradford,  of  the  Gazette,  received  the  printing  work 
of  the  corporation,  but  after  that  year  he  was  given  only 
one  job,  John  Peter  Zenger,  of  the  Journal,  a  supporter  of 
the  popular  party,  receiving  all  the  rest.4 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  60,  232.  J  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  249,  252. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  401-.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  op.  cit.,  passim. 


I92       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [392 

The  corporation  also  went  to  considerable  expense  to 
show  its  good  will  toward  the  sovereign  and  toward  repre- 
sentatives of  the  crown  in  America.  For  instance,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  king's  birthday  "  the  usual  quantity  of  good 
Wine  "  was  distributed  through  the  bounty  of  the  corpor- 
ation.1 Similar  donations  were  made  on  the  anniversary 
of  the  monarch's  accession,2  on  Guy  Fawkes  Day  (the  fifth 
of  November),  and  in  celebration  of  victories  such  as  the 
surrender  of  Cape  Breton.3  Sumptuous  banquets  were 
frequently  held  on  the  arrival  of  a  new  governor  or  of  a 
general.  The  entertainment  given  in  1773  in  honor  of 
General  Gage,  commander  of  the  British  forces  in  America, 
cost  the  corporation  over  £6i.4  Whenever  an  honorary 
freemanship  was  bestowed  upon  a  distinguished  visitor,  he 
usually  received,  at  the  cost  of  about  £30  to  the  corporation, 
a  reproduction  of  the  city's  seal,  enclosed  in  a  gold  box, 
together  with  an  engrossed  address  and  the  text  of  his 
"  freedom." 

The  funds  of  the  corporation  were  cared  for  by  the  city 
treasurer,  or,  as  he  was  sometimes  called,  the  chamberlain. 
To  hold  this  office,  one  needed  to  be  a  freeman  of  the 
corporation,  a  resident  of  the  city,  and  "A  Person  of  good 
Ability  and  Reputation."  °  In  addition,  the  incumbent  had 
to  place  with  the  commonalty  a  bond  of  £1000.  This  officer 
was  directly  responsible  to  the  common  council,  by  which 
body  he  was  appointed.  Despite  the  fact  that  his  appoint- 
ment was  only  for  one  year,  his  tenure  was  usually  very  long. 
One  incumbent,  Cornelius  De  Peyster,  was  regularly  chosen 
year  after  year,  regardless  of  his  age,  his  inability  to  col- 
lect the  money  from  debtors,  and  his  general  inefficiency.  It 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  31 ;  vol.  v,  p.  174.  a  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  62. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  151.  'Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  428. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  115. 


393]  FINANCE  IQ3 

was  also  the  intention  of  the  common  council  to  control 
the  office  of  treasurer  by  requiring  a  report  of  receipts  and 
of  expenditures  every  three  months,  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  these  statements  were  regularly  submitted.  The 
only  actual  limitation  on  the  treasurer  was  an  annual  audit 
made  by  a  committee  of  the  common  council.  Though  this 
work  was  usually  ordered  in  October,  when  the  term  of  the 
board  began,  the  report  of  the  committee  was  seldom  pre- 
sented before  the  following  spring.  These  audits,  as  en- 
tered in  the  minutes  of  the  common  council,  are  quite  in- 
complete, presenting  usually  but  four  items,  total  expendi- 
tures, receipts,  balance,  and  the  commission  of  the  treasurer. 
After  1760  even  these  meagre  reports  were  seldom  included 
in  the  minutes. 

Though  no  salary  was  given  the  treasurer,  he  was  per- 
mitted to  collect  substantial  commissions.  For  example, 
of  the  money  passing  through  his  hands  for  the  building  of 
a  jail  and  a  pest  house  he  was  permitted  to  retain  three- 
fourths  of  one  per  cent.1  Again,  on  every  pound  raised 
through  assessments  on  the  property  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city,  he  usually  received  a  commission  of  6d.2  By 
the  close  of  the  colonial  period,  when  thousands  of  pounds 
were  handled  by  the  treasurer,  his  compensation  became 
excessive.  In  view  of  this  condition,  the  recorder  sug- 
gested to  the  board  the  advisability  of  allowing  him  a  fixed 
salary,  instead  of  commissions.8  No  action  was  taken  on 
this  proposal,  and  the  treasurer  continued  to  collect  his  fees. 

The  most  onerous  duty  of  the  treasurer  was  to  try  to  col- 
lect bad  debts.  His  failure  in  his  task  is  evident  from  the 
summary  of  the  audits  entered  in  the  minutes  of  the  com- 
mon council.  These  figures  show  that  the  financial  status 

1 M,  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  87.  *  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  1063. 

3  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  p.  23. 


MEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [394 

of  the  corporation  was  especially  low  in  1756,  when,  with  a 
balance  of  but  £i  in  the  treasury,  the  debts  totaled  £2827. * 
Occasionally  the  treasurer  was  reminded  by  the  common 
council  that  it  was  the  "  Duty  of  the  Chamberlain  or  Treas- 
urer of  this  Corporation  to  Demand  Collect  and  Receive  for 
the  use  of  this  Corporation  all  such  sum  and  sums  of  Money 
Rents  and  Revenues  ...  in  Arrears  to  the  Corporation."  z 
A  list  of  these  debtors  was  frequently  requested  by  the 
board.  It  was  prepared  either  by  the  treasurer  or  by  the 
auditing  committee  of  the  common  council.8 

The  treasurer  had  at  his  disposal  means  of  compelling  the 
payment  of  arrears.  In  the  first  place,  he  could  insert  in 
the  local  newspapers  an  advertisement  giving  the  names  of  all 
persons  who  owed  money  to  the  corporation,  and  demanding 
payment  before  a  certain  date  on  penalty  of  legal  prosecu- 
tion.4 Upon  non-payment  of  these  debts,  the  chamberlain, 
could  then  take  action  against  these  recalcitrants  either  in 
the  mayor's  court  or  in  the  supreme  court.5  In  this  manner 
Israel  and  Timothy  Horsfield  were  sued  for  not  paying  the 
rent  due  on  the  market  stalls  which  they  had  leased  from  the 
municipality.6  On  another  occasion  the  common  council 
ordered  the  treasurer  to  bring  suit  against  the  sheriff  of 
New  York  county  to  recover  £160  which  that  officer  was 
unlawfully  withholding.7 

It  is  thus  evident  that  the  office  of  treasurer  was  a  very 
desirable  one.  He  was  not  hampered  by  any  close  super- 
vision from  the  common  council,  and  he  was  generously 
remunerated  for  his  services.  Aside  from  the  collection  of 
corporate  debts,  these  services  were  never  very  burdensome. 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  49.  'Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  419. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  19,  116.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  292. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  7.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  489-490. 
7  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  82. 


395]  FINANCE  I95 

Additional  city  officers  who  aided  in  the  administration  of 
the  municipal  finances  were  the  vestrymen,  the  assessors,  and 
the  collectors.  We  need  not  dwell  here  upon  the  duties  of 
the  first,  for  we  have  mentioned  them  in  the  chapter  on 
"  Charities  and  Correction."  The  position  of  the  second, 
however,  should  be  described  in  some  detail.  This  office  is 
of  particular  interest,  as  taxation  by  assessment  received  its 
earliest  development  in  New  York  in  the  colonial  period.1 
Every  year,  on  election  day  the  voters  of  each  ward  chose 
two  of  their  number  as  assessors.  These  were  duly  sworn 
in  with  the  other  officers  on  the  fourteenth  of  October.  It 
was  the  duty  of  the  assessors  to  ascertain  the  value  of  all 
assessable  property  within  their  respective  wards  and  submit 
their  reports  to  the  town  clerk.2 

The  assessors  apparently  received  no  remuneration  for 
their  work,  for  no  mention  of  any  reward  is  made  either  in 
the  provincial  statutes  or  the  municipal  ordinances.  The 
collector  of  taxes  on  the  contrary  was  paid  for  his  services. 
He  was  usually  entitled  to  9d  on  every  pound  which  he  paid 
to  the  treasurer,  who  acted  as  the  receiver  of  taxes.8  Though 
two  assessors  were  elected  in  every  ward,  only  one  collector 
was  chosen.  The  voters  had  need  to  exercise  caution  in 
selecting  a  person  for  this  office,  since  any  loss  suffered 
through  the  dishonesty  of  a  collector  was  sustained  by  the 
taxpayers  who  had  elected  him.4  If  a  collector  failed  to 
turn  into  the  treasury  the  quota  required  of  the  ward,  an 
extra  assessment  was  levied  upon  the  inhabitants  over  whom 
the  defaulting  collector  had  jurisdiction.  The  corporation 

'Rosewater,  Special  Assessments  (N.  Y.,  1893),  Columbia  University 
Studies,  vol.  ii,  no.  3,  p.  372. 
9  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  426. 
*  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  1063. 
4  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  275-277. 


I96       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [396 

required  of  each  collector  bonds  for  the  full  performance 
of  his  duty.1 

The  system  of  financial  administration  described  above 
is  undoubtedly  open  to  criticism.  The  loose  control  over  the 
treasurer,  the  inefficiency  of  the  vestrymen  and  the  unwise 
plan  of  electing  assessors  and  collectors,  all  proved  costly 
to  the  city. 

Having  mentioned  the  main  items  of  expenditure  and 
having  described  the  machinery  for  managing  the  finances 
of  the  city,  we  turn  to  a  consideration  of  its  sources  of 
revenue.  These  may  be  arranged  under  five  general  heads : 

(1)  franchises  and  improved  properties  of  the  corporation, 

(2)  taxation,  (3)  loans,  (4)  public  lotteries,  and  (5)  paper 
money. 

The  first  of  these  was  the  steadiest  and  most  dependable 
means  of  income.  Though  the  municipality  drew  upon 
other  sources  to  meet  extraordinary  financial  emergencies,  it 
relied  on  the  returns  from  its  franchises  and  properties  to 
meet  the  regular  expenses  of  government.  By  totaling  the 
annuities  from  ferries,  docks,  markets,  public  lands,  build- 
ings and  licenses,  the  development  of  the  city's  income  may 
be  traced.  From  the  table  presented  below,  it  will  be  seen 
that  in  1 730  the  returns  from  these  sources  were  small.  As 
the  Montgomerie  Charter  brought  valuable  water  rights  to 
the  corporation,  its  revenue  increased.  Despite  the  inter- 
colonial wars  and  the  Stamp  Act  disturbances,  the  returns 
continued  to  rise  until  in  1767  the  sum  of  £3333  was  col- 
lected. Thereafter  the  income  of  the  corporation  declined, 
until  in  1772  it  had  fallen  to  £2717. 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  v,  pp.  529-531. 


397] 


FINANCE 


197 


MUNICIPAL  REVENUE  FROM   FRANCHISES  AND  PROPERTIES   IN   POUNDS, 
OVER  FIVE-YEAR  PERIODS  x 


Ferries 

Docks 

Markets 

Lands 

Water  Lots 

Buildings 

Licences 

173° 

£246 

.... 

.... 

£28 

^91 

»735 

243 

.... 

.... 

5 

£33 

£2 

89 

1740 

307 

£73 

.... 

7 

5§ 

2 

J745 

37° 

go 

£IOS 

7 

68 

2 

194 

1750 

455 

no 

159 

7 

99 

5 

i  So 

1755 

650 

305 

190 

40 

142 

5° 

172 

1760 

650 

500 

245 

122 

196 

50 

524 

1765 

800 

550 

385 

50* 

225 

IOO 

180 

I77o 

97° 

690 

250 

374 

460 

60 

230 

For  many  years  the  returns  from  the  revenue-bearing 
properties  and  franchises  of  the  corporation  were  barely 
sufficient  to  meet  expenses,  and  there  was  no  surplus  suffi- 
cient to  meet  any  extraordinary  demand.  This  was  the 
situation  in  1730,  when  the  municipality  was  desirous  of 
purchasing  two  new  fire  engines  at  a  cost  of  £24O.2  At  this 
time  the  total  revenue  of  the  city  scarcely  exceeded  £360, 
and,  as  the  need  of  new  fire  apparatus  was  urgent,  money 
had  to  be  raised  through  a  general  levy  upon  the  real  and 
personal  property  of  the  inhabitants.3  The  right  to  levy 
such  a  direct  tax  was  not  granted  to  the  corporation  in  any 
of  its  charters,  but  could  be  exercised  only  when  sanctioned 
by  the  provincial  legislature.  Before  the  tax  could  be  levied, 
the  common  council  had  to  submit  a  formal  application  to 
the  legislature.  A  special  law  for  this  purpose  was  then 
enacted.4  Although  direct  taxes  were  levied  almost  yearly 

1  From  Ledgers  nos.  2  and  3 ;  Journals  nos.  2,  3,  4,  Corporation  of  the 
City  of  New  York. 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  48,  149. 

'Durand,  Finances  of  New  York  City  (N.  Y.,  1898),  p.  19. 
4  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  646-647. 


I9g       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [398 

after  1762,  the  custom  of  requiring  special  authorization  by 
the  legislature  was  maintained.1 

These  special  laws  always  placed  limitations  upon  the 
taxing  power  of  the  municipality.  The  usual  restrictions 
were  those  upon  the  gross  amount  of  the  tax,  the  time  limit 
for  collection,  the  manner  in  which  it  was  to  be  levied,  and 
the  specific  purposes  for  which  it  was  to  be  expended.  Every 
act  usually  fixed  the  maximum  sum  which  the  corporation 
was  allowed  to  collect.  For  example,  the  statute  of  1730 
ordered  that  the  proposed  tax  was  not  to  exceed  the  allow- 
ance of  £300,  current  money  of  the  colony.  The  time 
within  which  the  tax  was  to  be  collected  was  usually  the 
same,  the  corporation  being  generally  given  six  months  from 
the  publication  of  the  act.  The  methods  of  assessing  and 
collecting  taxes  were  specified  in  various  provincial  acts. 
They  described  the  properties  which  were  to  be  taxed,  steps 
which  could  be  taken  to  prevent  non-payment,  and  the  duties 
of  assessors  and  of  collectors.  Almost  every  act  contained 
the  same  statement  regarding  persons  who  were  amenable 
to  taxation.  It  was  uniformly  stated  that  the  tax  should 
be  levied  on  "  the  Estates  Real  and  Personal  of  all  and  every 
Freeman  Freeholders  Inhabitants  Residents  &  Sojourners 
within  the  said  City."  2  Apparently  this  sweeping  order 
subjected  all  property  of  all  persons  within  the  city  to  taxa- 
tion, but  for  a  long  time  taxes  were  placed  only  upon  real 
property.  This  state  of  affairs  continued  as  late  as  1734, 
tax  books  for  that  year  indicating  assessments  only  on 
houses,  lots,  grounds  and  other  real  estate,  and  showing  no 
levies  on  personal  property.8 

1  Since  the  colonial  period,. the  city  has  secured  considerable  freedom 
from  external  control  of  its  finances.  Fairlie,  Centralisation  of  Admin- 
istration, p.  186. 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  p.  646. 

s  Tax  and  Assessment  Books,  two  volumes,  comptroller's  office. 
Schwab,  History  of  the  New  York  Property  Tax  (American  Economic 
Association,  1890),  pp.  62-63. 


399]  FINANCE  I99 

As  taxes  became  more  burdensome,  and  as  the  value  of 
personal  property  increased  because  of  growing  profits  in 
trade,  the  demand  that  those  not  holding  land  bear  an  equit- 
able part  of  the  burden  of  taxation  became  insistent.  In 
time,  this  attitude  was  also  taken  by  the  provincial  legisla- 
tors, who  in  1741  passed  an  act  against  itinerant  merchants.1 
Many  of  these  persons  in  the  past  had  successfully  evaded 
paying  taxes  by  absenting  themselves  from  the  city  until 
after  assessments  were  completed.  By  the  new  law  any 
one  who  came  into  the  city  for  the  purpose  of  selling  mer- 
chandise, after  the  taxes  had  been  laid,  was  required  to  sub- 
mit a  sworn  statement  of  the  value  of  his  or  her  wares. 
This  act  apparently  accomplished  its  purpose,  and  it  was 
renewed.2  Other  acts  of  the  provincial  legislature  tended  to 
relieve  the  taxes  of  landowners.  In  1 758  a  law  was  enacted 
which  aimed  at  shifting  the  payment  of  taxes  on  rented  lots 
or  houses  from  landlords  to  leaseholders  and  to  tenants  of 
the  property.  As  the  former  method  of  taxation  had  been 
"  found  to  be  Uncertain  &  Unequal,"  the  statute  also  pro- 
vided that  "  all  Real  Estates  in  the  City  &  County  of  New 
York,  Shall  ...  be  Rated  or  assessed,  at  two  third  parts 
of  the  Rent,  or  Yearly  Income  of  the  Same."  8  In  1770 
the  legislature  passed  a  law  which  placed  a  severe  penalty 
on  those  concealing  property  from  the  tax  collectors.4 

As  the  legislature  always  defined  the  purpose  of  the  levy, 
the  history  of  direct  taxation  may  be  conveniently  traced. 
Since  1693  the  tax  for  the  support  of  the  ministry  and  of 
the  poor  in  New  York  city  had  been  levied  with  more  or 
less  regularity.  But  as  this  statute  had  been  enacted 
through  the  efforts  of  Governor  Benjamin  Fletcher,  to  estab- 
lish the  Anglican  church,  and  not  at  the  request  of  the  city, 

1Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  179-181.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  449-451,  1142-1143. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  306-309.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  83-85. 


200       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [4OO 

it  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  marking  the  inauguration  of 
direct  taxation  by  the  municipality.  Rather  it  may  be  said 
that  this  practice  was  initiated  through  the  passage,  in  1730, 
of  an  act  empowering  the  mayor,  aldermen,  and  commonalty 
to  raise  money,  mainly  for  the  purchase  of  two  fire  engines.1 
This  statute  differs  from  other  acts  on  direct  taxation,  in 
that  it  permitted  the  corporation  to  levy  the  tax  for  three 
consecutive  years,  subsequent  acts  usually  allowing  a  tax 
to  be  collected  only  once.  If  the  corporation  desired  a  tax 
to  be  repeated  a  second  year,  the  original  authorization  was 
reenacted  into  law. 

For  the  next  twenty-five  years,  direct  taxes  were  seldom 
levied.  One  tax  was  levied  in  1737,  when  the  corporation 
was  permitted  to  raise  £250  to  pay  some  of  its  accumulated 
debts.2  Four  years  later  the  so-called  negro  conspiracy 
brought  about  the  establishment  of  a  night  watch,  and,  to 
defray  the  charges  of  maintaining  this  special  force,  the 
legislature  permitted  the  municipality  to  collect  £574.®  In 
1746  two  small  levies  were  authorized:  one  for  £36,  the 
other  for  £80  for  paying  the  salary  of  the  representative  of 
the  city  in  the  assembly,  and  for  the  fees  of  the  coroner.4 
Another  small  tax  for  repairing  the  public  wells  and  pumps 
was  added  to  the  poor  rate  in  1753,  this  being  the  only  tax 
regularly  collected  in  the  city.5 

After  1756  direct  taxes  were  levied  regularly  to  meet  the 
heavy  expenses  of  the  city  government.  War,  which  was 
draining  the  coffers  of  European  nations,  did  not  spare  the 
treasury  of  the  city.  It  was  compelled  to  erect  barracks 
for  quartering  troops,  and  a  new  jail  for  receiving  prisoners 
of  war.6  In  addition,  several  worthy  municipal  undertak- 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  ii,  pp.  645-647.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  1061-1063. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  158-162.  'Ibid.,  pp.  542,  619-620. 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  942-947.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  211-213. 


401]  FINANCE  201 

ings  were  begun.  One  of  these  was  to  render  streets  safer 
by  providing  public  lamps  and  hiring  additional  watchmen. 
The  allowance  for  this  purpose  was  levied  every  year,  and 
was  added  to  the  poor  rate.1 

The  city  needed  funds  for  other  public  enterprises.  The 
water  front  especially  required  improvement  in  order  to 
accommodate  the  growing  commerce  of  the  port,  and  to  this 
end  the  corporation  planned  to  build  a  pier  at  the  west  side 
of  Coenties  Slip  at  an  initial  cost  of  £700. 2  The  municipal 
revenues  were  insufficient  for  this  purpose,  and  the  common 
council  was  apparently  unwilling  to  raise  the  amount 
through  taxation.  The  corporation,  thus  forced  to  seek 
other  means  of  securing  money,  entered  upon  the  policy  of 
borrowing  from  its  wealthy  citizens,  and  of  giving  bonds 
covering  twice  the  amount  of  the  loan.  The  first  of  these 
loans  was  negotiated  in  1750,  when  the  corporation  bor- 
rowed £260  from  Christopher  Bancker.3 .  To  this  citizen 
therefore  belongs  the  distinction  of  being  the  first  holder  of 
New  York  city  bonds.  In  the  following  year  a  second 
loan  was  made,  this  time  of  £600,  and  later  a  third  indebt- 
edness to  the  amount  of  £350  was  assumed.4 

From  the  terms  of  these  three  bonds,  it  appears  that  the 
corporation  regarded  the  policy  of  borrowing  money  as 
merely  a  temporary  expedient,  for  every  agreement  between 
the  municipality  and  the  bondholder  stipulated  that  the  loan 
was  to  be  paid  back  within  two  years.  But  it  was  far  easier 
to  contract  such  debts  than  to  discharge  them.  Therefore, 
when  the  time  for  redeeming  the  bonds  came,  the  common 
council  deemed  it  advisable  to  secure  the  consent  of  the 
holders  to  a  renewal.  In  order  to  do  this  the  bonds  were 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  392,  573-576.  671-673. 

2Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  371.    Vide  supra,  p.  152. 

3 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  314-  'Ibid.,  pp.  342,  371. 


202        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [402 

made  more  attractive  by  raising  the  interest  on  them  from 
six  to  seven  per  cent.1  Unfortunately,  political  conditions 
did  not  favor  liquidation  of  municipal  debts,  and  the  as- 
sumption of  new  debts  was  encouraged. 

About  this  time  the  last  intercolonial  war  began.  The 
seriousness  of  this  final  struggle  with  the  French  was  fully 
appreciated  by  the  city  councillors,  for,  in  order  properly  to 
equip  the  poorer  citizens,  they  ordered  one  thousand  stacks 
of  firearms  from  England.  To  expedite  the  shipment  of 
these  military  supplies,  a  large  sum  was  immediately  re- 
quired. The  revenues  of  the  city  fell  short  of  the  required 
sum,  and  taxes,  which  required  the  authorization  of  the 
legislature,  could  not  be  raised  in  time.  Therefore,  the 
common  council  was  again  forced  to  secure  the  necessary 
amount  through  loans,  this  time  from  Alderman  Oliver  De 
Lancey,  and  from  the  Hon.  John  Watts,  each  giving  £729 
1 6s  id  sterling.2 

By  1756  the  bonded  debt  of  the  city  had  grown  to  an 
alarming  extent.  The  high  interest  rate  of  seven  per  cent 
made  the  common  council  anxious  to  alleviate  its  financial 
burdens,  and  accordingly  a  policy  of  contraction  was  pur- 
sued during  this  year.  No  new  loan  was  made,  and  steps 
were  even  taken  to  cancel  some  of  the  old  bonds.  The 
municipality  operated  a  lottery,  and  used  the  proceeds  to  dis- 
charge four  bonds.8  The  loans  from  De  Lancey  and  from 
Watts  were  canceled,  partly  from  a  surplus  in  the  treasury 
and  partly  by  a  new  loan  of  £1000,  negotiated  in  1757.*  The 
corporation  was  fortunate  in  securing  this  bond  at  the  low 
interest  rate  of  five  per  cent. 

From  this  year  until  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution,  the 
financial  policy  of  the  corporation  alternated  between  ex- 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  471.  1Ibid.,  pp.  21-22. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  47,  54-55-  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  97-98,  104. 


403]  FINANCE  203 

pansion  and  contraction.  In  1758  and  1759,  new  loans 
amounting  to  several  thousand  pounds  were  assumed  in 
order  to  discharge  the  obligations  of  old  ones.1  During  the 
next  four  years  only  three  loans  were  negotiated.  The  dis- 
turbed political  conditions  incident  to  the  passing  of  the 
Stamp  Act,  however,  curtailed  the  revenues  of  the  muni- 
cipality, and  to  meet  the  growing  deficit  thousands  of  pounds 
were  borrowed.  The  corporation  soon  found  difficulty  in 
meeting  its  obligations,  and  many  of  the  loans  could  not  be 
paid  off,  so  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  with  the  mother 
country  New  York  city  owed  £i3,ooo.2  This  sum  we  may 
regard  as  marking  the  origin  of  the  bonded  debt  of  New 
York. 

The  rate  of  interest  paid  by  the  city  varied.  Some  of  the 
earlier  bonds  called  for  a  return  of  seven  per  cent,  but  those 
made  between  1757  and  1763  yielded  only  five  per  cent. 
Through  the  efforts  of  Alderman  John  Bogert,  holder  of 
several  bonds,  the  rate  was  raised  to  six  per  cent.  It  re- 
mained at  this  level  until  1771,  when  all  bonds  calling  for 
six  per  cent  interest,  were  withdrawn  and  a  new  lot  at  five 
per  cent  was  issued.  This  lower  rate  was  maintained  until 
the  Revolution. 

The  bonds  were  purchased  by  many  prominent  individ- 
uals and  by  several  local  organizations.  Among  the  bond- 
holders were  such  well-known  New  Yorkers  as  Oliver  De 
Lancey,  Henry  Cruger,  and  Pierre  De  Peyster.  The  New 
York  Marine  Society,  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  the 
New  York  Hospital  also  held  city  bonds. 

One  means  of  raising  funds  already  mentioned  was 
through  the  operation  of  public  lotteries.8  Against  this 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  p.  429. 

7  Black,  Municipal  Ownership  of  Land,  p.  30. 

8  Ross,  History  of  Lotteries  in  New  York,  pp.  13-22. 


204       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [404 

method  even  reputable  citizens  had  no  scruples.  The  plan 
was  first  tried  by  the  provincial  legislature  in  1746,  when  it 
ordered  a  lottery  for  the  purpose  of  raising  £3375  to 
strengthen  the  fortifications  of  New  York  city/  The  act 
of  the  legislature  required  the  members  of  the  common 
council  to  attend  the  drawing  of  the  lottery  tickets  in  order 
to  assure  prospective  adventurers  of  a  fair  distribution.2 
Though  the  common  council  had  supervision  over  this 
lottery,  it  in  no  way  added  to  the  income  of  the  corporation, 
since  the  entire  proceeds  went  into  the  treasury  of  the  prov- 
ince. It  was  not  until  1756  that  the  city  of  New  York 
made  use  of  public  lotteries  to  secure  money  for  its  own 
needs.  As  in  the  case  of  taxation,  the  sanction  of  the 
legislature  was  required.  Accordingly,  the  common  coun- 
cil addressed  a  formal  petition  setting  forth  the  need  of 
£3000  for  importing  1000  stacks  of  arms.3  Since  the  cor- 
poration was  deep  in  debt  and  could  not  raise  the  entire 
amount  through  loans  without  injuring  its  credit,  the  legis- 
lature was  asked  to  give  its  authorization  to  a  municipal 
lottery.  The  request  was  promptly  granted.*  The  pro- 
ceeds of  this  lottery  were  not  directly  devoted  to  the  pur- 
chase of  arms,  for  it  will  be  recalled  that  the  corporation 
in  its  haste  had  already  given  bonds  for  the  purpose,  and  in 
consequence  the  funds  from  this  lottery  were  used  to  dis- 
charge several  loans.5  Another  lottery  was  later  held  to 
provide  for  the  erection  of  a  new  jail  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  prisoners  of  war.6  Additional  lotteries  for  the  erec- 
tion of  city  prisons  and  for  the  enlarging  of  the  City  Hall 
were  authorized  before  the  close  of  the  colonial  period.7 

1  Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  528-538.  a  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  v,  p.  176. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  20-21.  4Col.  Laws,  vol.  iii,  pp.  1127-1129. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  94-95.  'Co/.  Laws,  vol.  iv,  pp.  126-134. 

''Ibid.,  pp.  160-162,  202-210.    M.  C.  C.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  80,  326. 


405]  FINANCE  205 

The  last  of  the  five  forms  of  financing  city  undertakings 
was  the  issuing  of  bills  of  credit.  The  occasion  for  strik- 
ing these  notes  arose  in  1774,  when  the  city  planned  to  con- 
struct water  works.1  Several  issues  were  put  out  until, 
within  two  years,  they  represented  a  face  value  of  over 
£9,ooo.2 

What  general  conclusions  may  we  reach  as  to  the  con- 
dition of  the  city  finances  toward  the  close  of  the  colonial 
period?  Several  facts  lead  us  to  the  belief  that  it  was  far 
from  sound.  The  expenditures  were  always  met  with 
difficulty,  for,  in  addition  to  the  items  discussed  above,  the 
municipality  was  subjected  to  a  constant  drain  in  the  form 
of  a  heavy  poor  rate  and  the  burden  of  paying  one  third  of 
the  taxes  of  the  province.  Meanwhile  the  disturbed  condi- 
tions following  the  Stamp  Act  riots  injured  commerce  and 
made  heavy  taxes  more  burdensome.  Taxation  proving  in- 
sufficient, bonds  and  paper  money  were  issued  in  large  quan- 
tities. The  beginning  of  hostilities,  however,  put  a  sudden 
end  to  the  issuance  of  bills  of  credit  before  this  system 
could  become  a  serious  menace. 

1  Vide  supra,  chapter  on  "  Fire  Protection." 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  59,  103,  114. 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY 

ECONOMICS  AND 

PUBLIC  LAW 


EDITED  BY 

THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


VOLUME  SEVENTY-FIVE 


f)ork 
COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 

LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  LTD. 

1917 


CONTENTS 


NEW  YORK  AS  AN  EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURY  MUNICIPALITY 

ACC 

PART     I — PRIOR  TO  1731 — Arthur  Everett  Petersen      .         .       i 
PART  II — 1731-1776 — George  William  Edwards          .         .  201 


PART    I      PRIOR  TO    I/SI 

BY  ARTHUR  EVERETT  PETERSON 

CHAPTER        I.  INTRODUCTORY — GOVERNMENT 

«  II.  REGULATION  OF  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 

"  III.  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS 

"  IV.  THE  DOCK 

"  V.  THE  FERRIES 

"  VI.  THE  WATCH 

"  VII.  FIRE 

"  VIII.  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 


PART    II       1731-1776 

BY  GEORGE  WILLIAM  EDWARDS 

CHAPTER        I.    ORGANIZATION   OF  GOVERNMENT   UNDER  THE 

MONTGOMERIE  CHARTER 

"  II.  POLITICAL  ASPECTS 

"  III.  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 

"  IV.  CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 

"  V.  KEEPING  THE  PEACE 

"  VI.  FIRE  PROTECTION 

"  VII.  REGULATION  OF  PUBLIC  LAND  AND  STREETS 

"  VIII.  FERRIES  AROUND  LOWER  MANHATTAN  ISLAND 

"  IX.  FINANCE 


PREFACE 

THE  title  of  this  monograph  requires  some  explanation. 
It  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  real  turning  point  in 
both  English  and  American  history  was  not  the  close  of 
the  year  1700,  a  date  merely  marking  the  end  of  one  cen- 
tury and  the  beginning  of  the  next,  but  rather  the  years 
1689-1690.  Conditions  in  the  period  intervening  were 
essentially  those  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Therefore 
in  the  treatment  of  New  York  as  an  eighteenth  century 
municipality  we  are  justified  in  beginning  at  least  as  far 
back  as  1689.  But  the  conditions  which  existed  before 
that  date,  and  even  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  Dutch 
period,  were  not  fundamentally  different  from  those  which 
were  contemporaneous  with  the  English  Revolution.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  explain  political  situations  and  official 
functions  as  they  appeared  at  any  date  after  the  English 
occupation,  much  attention  must  be  devoted  to  the  Dutch 
municipalities  of  New  Amsterdam  and  New  Orange,  as 
well  as  to  the  early  government  of  the  city  under  the 
English. 

Such  a  study,  with  a  prospect  of  yielding  anything  like 
accurate  results,  was^impossible  until  the  common  coun- 
cil minutes  of  pre-revolutionary  days  had  been  printed 
and  indexed.  In  ;the  preface  of  the  minutes,  published 
in  eight  volumes  in  1905,  the  editors  stated  their  belief 
that  "  the  printing  of  these  minutes  was  a  necessary  con- 
dition for  the  study  of  the  early  growth  of  city  govern- 
ment in  this  country." 

The  authors  of  existing  histories  of  New  York  City 
would  not  claim  that  they  were  treating  the  city  as  a  muni- 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


cipality.  The  most  recent  of  these,  Mrs.  Schuyler  Van 
Rensselaer,  in  the  preface  of  her  admirable  work,  states 
that  "  a  history  of  the  municipality  strictly  considered  as 
such,  showing  in  detail  the  genesis,  character,  methods, 
and  resources  of  the  city  government  from  its  modest 
Dutch  beginning  in  1653  until  the  present  time"  would  be 
well  worth  writing.  If  such  a  history  of  any  municipality, 
American  or  English,  were  in  existence,  the  authors  would 
have  had  an  available  guide.  As  it  is,  they  have  been 
obliged  to  "  blaze  a  path."  They  realize  fully  that  there 
may  be  documents  as  yet  undiscovered  which  will  lend 
to  statements  a  different  color  or  occasionally  make  a 
conclusion  untenable.  They  simply  express  the  hope  that 
this  joint  work  may  prove  useful  until  there  shall  be 
something  better.  The  best  can  come,  however,  only 
after  the  thousands  of  loose  papers  in  the  custody  of  the 
city  clerk  are  indexed,  at  least,  and  after  the  court  min- 
utes are  made  available  in  printed  form. 
.  The  year  1731  was  selected  as  an  appropriate  point  at 
which  to  divide  the  work,  because  the  Montgomerie 
charter  was  granted  then ;  also  because  that  was  the  time 
when  the  newspapers  and  controversial  literature  begin 
to  afford  material  for  study.  A  difference  in  the  source 
material  after  1731  as  compared  with  the  earlier  period, 
suggested  a  somewhat  modified  topical  arrangement  for 
the  second  part. 

The  authors  desire  to  express  their  gratitude  to  Pro- 
fessor Herbert  L.  Osgood,  chairman  of  the  publication 
committee  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  at 
whose  instigation  the  work  was  undertaken  and  under 
whose  encouraging  and  patient  guidance  it  has  come 
to  fruition ;  to  Dr.  Austin  Baxter  Keep,  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  History,  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  an 
associate  of  Professor  Osgood  in  the  editing  of  the 


PREFACE 


IX 


colonial  records,  who  has  read  much  of  the  manuscript 
and  the  proof  throughout,  and  whose  suggestions  as  to 
both  content  and  phraseology  have  been  invaluable ;  to 
Victor  Hugo  Palsits  of  the  New  York  Public  Library, 
who  read  critically  the  introductory  chapters,  and  whose 
extensive  knowledge  of  source  material  has  been  im- 
parted to  both  authors  most  generously;  to  Professor 
Howard  L.  McBain,  of  Columbia  University,  who  read 
the  manuscript  critically  and  offered  timely  suggestions  ; 
to  Mrs.  Maude  Gridley  Peterson,  who  turned  aside  from 
her  botanical  studies  to  investigate,  collate  and  copy 
source  material. 

Thanks  are  also  due  to  Mrs.  Schuyler  Van  Rensselaer 
who  loaned  rare  books  from  her  private  collection;  to 
Dr.  A.  J.  Korey,  of  Stuyvesant  High  School,  who  read 
the  manuscript  of  part  two  with  particular  attention  to 
form,  to  Miss  Edna  Hahn  of  the  Evander  Childs  High 
School,  who  gathered  some  important  matter  from  Ger- 
man works,  and  to  Mr.  Thomas  Mulligan,  whose  close 
acquaintance  with  court  records  has  been  of  great  service. 

ARTHUR  EVERETT  PETERSON. 

GEORGE  WILLIAM  EDWARDS. 
NEW  YORK,  March  17,  1917. 


itx  tto  Cits  0* 


The  University  includes  the  following  : 

Columbia  College,  founded  in  1754,  and  Barnard  College,  founded  in 
1889,  offering  to  men  and  women,  respectively,  programs  of  study  which  may 
be  begun  either  in  September  or  February  and  which  lead  normally  in  from  three 
to  four  years  to  the  degrees  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  the  former  and  of  Bachelor 
of  Arts  and  Bachelor  of  Science  in  the  latter.  The  program  of  study  in  Columbia 
College  makes  it  possible  for  a  well  qualified  student  to  satisfy  the  requirements 
for  both  the  bachelor's  degree  and  a  professional  degree  in  law,  medicine,  tech- 
nology or  education  in  six,  five  and  a-half,  or  five  years  as  the  case  may  be. 

The  Faculties  of  Political  Science,  Philosophy  and  Pure  Science,  offering 
advanced  programs  of  study  and  investigation  leading  to  the  degrees  of  Master  of 
Arts  and  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 

The  Professional  Schools  of 
Law,  established  in  1858,  offering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  the  degree  of 

Bachelor  of  Laws  and  of  one  year  leading  to  the  degree  of  Master  of  Laws. 
Medicine.     The  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons,  established  in  1807,  offering 
two  years  courses  leading  to  other  degrees  of  Bachelor  of  Science  and 
four-year  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Medicine. 
Mines,  founded  in  1863,  offering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  degrees  in 
Mining,  Engineering  and  in  Metallurgy,  and  of  one  year  leading  to  the 
degree  of  Master  of  Science. 

Chemistry  and  Engineering,  set  apart  from  School  of  Mines  in  1896,  offering 
three-year  courses  leading  to  degrees  in  Chemistry,  and  in  Civil,  Electrical, 
Mechanical  and  Chemical  Engineering,  and  of  one  year  leading  to  the  degree 
of  Master  of  Science. 

Teachers  College,  founded  in  1888,  offering  in  its  School  of  Education  courses 
in  the  history  and  philosophy  of  education  and  the  theory  and  practice  of 
teaching,  leading  to  appropriate  diplomas  and  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of 
Science  in  Education  ;  and  in  its  School  of  Practical  Arts  founded  in  1912, 
courses  in  household  and  industrial  arts,  fine  arts,  music,  and  physical  train- 
ing leading  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science  in  Practical  Arts.  All  the 
courses  in  Teachers  College  are  open  to  men  and  women.  These  faculties 
offer  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  and  Master  of  Science. 
Architecture,  offering  a  program  of  indeterminate  length  leading  to  the  degree 

of  Bachelor  of  Architecture  and  Master  of  Science. 

Journalism,  founded  in  1912,  offering  a  four-year  course  leading  to  the  degree 
of  Bachelor  of  Literature  in  Journalism.     The  work  of  the  first  two  years  is 
given  by  the  Faculty  of  Columbia  College. 
Business,  founded  in  1916,  offering  two  and  three-year  courses  in  business  train- 

ing leading  to  appropriate  degrees. 

Dentistry,  founded  in  1917,  offering  four-year  courses  leading  to  appropriate 
degrees. 

Pharmacy.  The  New  York  College  of  Pharmacy,  founded  in  1831,  offering 
courses  of  two  and  three  years  leading  to  appropriate  certificates  and  degrees. 

In  the  Summer  Session  the  University  offers  courses  giving  both  general  and 
professional  training  which  may  be  taken  either  with  or  without  regard  to  an 
academic  degree  or  diploma. 

Through  its  system  of  Extension  Teaching  the  University  offers  many  courses 
of  study  to  persons  unable  otherwise  to  receive  academic  training. 

The  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences  provides  lectures,  concerts,  readings  and 
recitals  —  approximately  two  hundred  and  fifty  in  number  —  in  a  single  season. 

The  price  of  the  University  Catalogue  is  twenty-five  cents  postpaid.  Detailed 
information  regarding  the  work  in  any  department  will  be  furnished  without 
charge  upon  application  to  the  Secretary  of  Columbia  University,  New  York, 


Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies 

in  Historical  and  Political  Science 


Studies  in  American  Trade  Unionism,  by  members  of  the  Economic 
Seminary  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  have  been  published  as  follows: 
The  Finances  of  American  Trade  Unions.  By  A.  M.  SAKOLSKI.  Series 

XXIV  (1906),  Nos.  3-4.    Paper,  75  cents. 

National  Labor  Federations  in  the  United  States.    By  WILLIAM   KIRK. 

Series  XXIV  (1906),  Nos.  9-10.    Paper,  75  cents. 
Apprenticeship  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  J.  M.  MOTLEY.    Series 

XXV  (1907),  Nos.  11-12.    Paper,  50  cents. 

Beneficiary  Features  of  American  Trade  Unions.    By  J.  B.  KENNEDY.    Series 

XXVI  (1908),  Nos.  n-12.    Paper,  50  cents. 

The  Trade-Union  Label.    By  E.  R.  SPEDDEN.    Series  XXVIII  (1910),  No. 

2.    Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 
The  Closed  Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  F.  T.  STOCKTON.    Series 

XXIX  (1911),  No.  3.    Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

The  Standard  Rate  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  D.  A.  McCABE.    Series 

XXX  (1912),  No.  2.    Paper,  $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

Admission  to  American  Trade  Unions.    By  F.  E.  WOLFE.    Series  XXX 

(1912),  No.  3.    Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 
The  Government  of  American  Trade  Unions.    By  T.  W.  GLOCKER.    Series 

XXXI  (1913),  No.  2.    Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

Jurisdiction  in  American  Building  Trades  Unions.     By  N.  R.  WHITNEY. 

Series  XXXII  (1914),  No.  i.    Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 
The  Helper  and  American  Trade  Unions.    By  JOHN  H.  ASHWORTH.    Series 

XXXIII  (1915),  No.  3.     Paper,  75  cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

The  Boycott  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  LEO  WOLMAN.    Series  XXXIV 

(1916),  No.  i.    Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 
The  Control  of  Strikes  in  American  Trade  Unions.    By  G.  M.  JANES.    Series 

XXXIV  (1916),  No.  3.     Paper,  75  cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

The  Organizability  of  Labor.    By  W.  O.  WEYFORTH,  JR.    Series  XXXV 

(1917),  No.  2.     Paper,  $1.50;  cloth,  $1.75- 
Bibliography  of  American  Trade-Union  Publications.     Edited  by  GEORGE  E. 

BARNETT.    Second  edition.    The  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  1907.    Paper, 

75  cents. 

Subscriptions  and  orders  for  single  monographs  should  be  sent  to 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  Baltimore,  Md. 


Columbia  University  Press  Publications 

OUR  CHIEF  MAGISTRATE  AND  HIS  POWERS.  By  WILLIAM  HOWARD 
TAFT,  Twenty- seventh  President  of  the  United  States.  Pp.  vii-f-  165. 

CONSTITUTIONAL    GOVERNMENT    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.      By 

WOODROW  WILSON,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  United  States.     Pp.  vii-f- 236. 

THE  BUSINESS  OF  CONGRESS.  By  SAMUEL  W.  McCALL,  Governor  of 
Massachusetts.  Pp.  vii  -(-  215. 

THE  COST  OF  OUR  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT.  By  HENRY  JONES  FORD, 
Professor  of  Politics  in  Princeton  University.  Pp.  xv  -|-  147. 

POLITICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT.  By  ALBERT 
SHAW,  LL.D.,  Editor  ofthe  Review  of  Reviews.  Pp.  vii-f  268. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS  FROM  THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  CITIZEN.  By  JEREMIAH  W.  JENKS,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Gov- 
ernment and  Public  Administration  in  New  York  University.  Pp.  xviii  -f-  187. 

WORLD  ORGANIZATION  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURE  OF  THE 
MODERN  STATE.  By  DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  LL.D.,  late  American  Ambas- 
sador to  Germany.  Pp.  ix  -f-  214. 

THE  NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  LAW.  By  JOHN  CHIPMAN  GRAY, 
LL.D.,  late  Royall  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  University.  Pp.  xii  -f-332- 

THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW.  By  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  FRED- 
ERICK POLLOCK,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.  Pp.  vii-f  141. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON.  His  Permanent  Influence  on  American  Institutions. 
By  JOHN  SHARP  WILLIAMS,  U.  S.  Senator  from  Mississippi.  Pp.  ix  -f  330. 

THE  MECHANICS  OF  LAW  MAKING.  By  COURTENAY  ILBERT,  G.  C.  B., 
Clerk  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Pp.  viii  -j-  209. 

LAW  AND  ITS  ADMINISTRATKW.  By  HARLAN  F.  STONE,  LL.D.,  Dean  of 
the  School  of  Law,  Columbia  University.  Pp.  vii  -f-  232. 

Uniformly  bound,  12mo,  cloth.    Each,  $1.50  net. 


THE  LAW  AND  THE  PRACTICE  OF  MUNICIPAL  HOME  RULE.  By  HOW- 
ARD LEE  McBAiN,  Associate  Professor  of  Municipal  Science  and  Administration 
in  Columbia  University.  8vo,  cloth,  pp.  xviii  -j-  724.  Price,  $5.00  net. 

STUDIES  IN  SOUTHERN  HISTORY  AND  POLITICS.  Inscribed  to  William 
Archibald  Dunning,  Lieber  Professor  of  History  and  Political  Philosophy  in 
Columbia  University,  by  his  former  pupils,  the  authors.  A  collection  of  fifteen 
essays.  Svo,  cloth,  pp.  viii  +  294.  $2.50  net. 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  QUARTERLY.  A  magazine  issued  by  authority  of 
the  Trustees  of  the  University,  which  aims  to  represent  that  wide  variety  of  lit- 
erary, philosophic,  and  scientific  activity  which  focuses  at  Columbia  and  through 
which  the  University  contributes  to  the  thought  and  work  of  the  world.  The 
Quarterly  is  issued  in  December,  March,  June  and  September.  Annual  sub- 
scription, one  dollar  ;  single  numbers,  thirty  cents.  400  pages  per  volume. 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LEMCKE  &  BUEOHNEB,  Agents 
30-32  West  Twenty-Seventh  Street,  New  York  City 


Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.'s  Publications 


THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.     By 

ERNEST  LUDLOW  BOGART,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Economics  in 
the  University  of  Illinois.  With  26  Maps  and  95  Illustrations.  Crown 
8vo.,  51.75,  net. 

READINGS  IN  THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES.  By  E.  L.  BOGART,  Ph.D.,  and  C.  M.  THOMPSON,  Ph.D., 
of  the  University  of  Illinois.  8vo.  $2.80. 

A  source  book  which  collects  in  one  volume  contemporary  material 
illustrating  the  most  important  economic  developments  in  the  country's 
history.  The  material  is  arranged  as  follows  :  Eight  chapters  deal  with 
the  United  States  before  1 808;  nine  with  the  period  of  1808-1860;  and 
six  with  the  period  since  1860. 

HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND  FROM  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE 
ARMADA  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  ELIZABETH.  With  an  Ac- 
count of  English  Institutions  During  the  Later  Sixteenth  and  Early  Seven- 
teenth Centuries.  By  EDWARD  P.  CHEYNEY,  A.M.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  European  History  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  In  2  volumes. 
8vo.  Vol.  I.  $3.50,  net. 

"  It  is  a  singular  instance  of  the  skill  with  which  the  mass  of  detail  now  at  the  disposal 
of  the  historian  can  be  ransacked  and  reproduced  so  as  to  give,  with  no  hint  of  sensational- 
ism, an  actual  living  picture  of  events.1'—  The  Times. 

PUBLIC  OPINION  AND  POPULAR  GOVERNMENT.     By  A. 

LAWRENCE  LOWELL,  President  of  Harvard  University.  8vo.  12.25,  net- 
(American  Citizen  Series). 

..."  The  book  is  a  distinct  addition  to  the  literature  dealing  with  popular  government. 
— in  some  respects,  indeed,  the  most  valuable  that  has  been  made  by  an  American  author.' 
— The  Dial. 

THE  WHEEL  OF  WEALTH.  Being  a  Reconstruction  of  the  Science 
and  Art  of  Political  Economy  on  the  lines  of  Modern  Evolution.  By 
JOHN  BEATTIE  CROZIER,  LL.D.  Author  of  "  Civilization  and  Progress," 
"  History  of  Intellectual  Development,"  &c.  8vo.  $4.50. 

"  Without  exaggeration  a  great  book.  In  the  march  of  ideas  to  which  political  progress 
eventually  responds,  a  work  of  this  remarkable  character  must  be  certain  of  influence  and 
appreciation,  —/to//  Mall  Gazette. 

MUNICIPAL  LIFE  AND  GOVERNMENT  IN  GERMANY.  By 
WILLIAM  HARBUTT  DAWSON,  Author  of  "The  Evolution  of  Modern 
Germany,"  "  Germany  and  the  Germans,"  etc.  Second  Edition.  $2.50, 
net. 

"...  The  volume  rebounds  with  valuable  material  interlocked  with  judgments  based  on 
a  thoroughgoimg  knowledge  and  appreciation  of  municipal  institutions  in  Germany." — 
Annual*  of the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

Fourth  Avenue  and  3Oth  Street,  New  York. 


Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.'s  Publications 


Day — A  History  of  Commerce.  By  CLIVK  DAY,  Ph.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Economic  History  in  Yale  University.  With  34  Maps.  639 
pages.  {2.00  net. 

This  book  contains  the  essentials  of  commercial  progress;  and  development  with  special 
attention  to  the  relative  proportion  of  subjects.  During  the  nineteenth  century,  the  appor- 
tionment of  space  to  the  different  countries  has  been  regulated  by  their  respective  commer- 
cial importance.  The  first  two  chapters  on  the  United  States  are  designed  to  serve  both  as 
a  summary  of  colonial  history  and  as  an  introduction  to  the  commercial  development  of  the 
national  period.  Later  chapters  aim  to  include  the  essentials  of  our  commercial  progress. 

Follett— The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. By  M.  P.  FOLLETT.  With  an  Introduction  by  ALBERT  B. 
HART,  LL.D.  Crown  8vo,  with  Appendices  and  Index.  Jl-75  net. 

"In  few  recent  works  belonging  to  the  field  of  politics  and  history  do  we  find  so  much  evi- 
dence of  the  conditions  which  are  essential  to  the  making  of  a  good  book — a  well-chosen 
theme,  grasp  of  subject,  mastery  of  material,  patient,  long-continued,  wisely  directed  labor, 
good  sense  and  good  taste  .  .  .  the  wonder  is  that  in  a  region  so  new  the  author  should  have 
succeeded  in  exploring  so  far  and  so  well.  The  work  has  placed  every  student  of  politics 
and  political  history  under  heavy  obligations." — Political  Science  Quarterly. 

Cadbury — Experiments  in  Industrial  Organization. 

By  EDWARD  CADBURY,  part  author  of  "Women's  Work  and  Wages" 
and  "  Sweating."  With  a  Preface  by  W.  J.  ASHLEY,  M.  A.,  Professor 
of  Commerce  in  the  University  of  Birmingham.  Crown  8vo.  $l.6o  net 

Ripley — Railroads.  In  two  volumes.  By  WILLIAM  Z. 
RIPLEY,  Ph.D.,  Nathaniel  Ropes  Professor  of  Economics  in  Harvard 
University,  author  of  "Railway  Problems,"  etc.  Vol.  I,  Rates  and  Regu- 
lation, with  41  maps  and  Diagrams.  8vo,  pp.  xviii  4-659,  #3.00  net 
Vol.  II,  Finance  and  organization,  with  29  maps  and  diagrams  in  the  text. 
8vo,  pp.  xx+638,  $3.00  net. 

Rowe—  United  States  and  Porto  Rico.  With  Special  Refer- 
ence to  the  Problems  arising  out  of  our  contact  with  the  Spanish  American 
Civilization.  By  LEO  S.  ROWE,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Science  in 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Chairman  of  the  Porto  Rican  Commission 
(1901-1902),  etc.  Crown  8vo.  280  pages.  $1.30  net. 

Willoughhy— Political  Theories  of  the  Ancient  World. 

By  WESTEL  W.  WILLOUGHBY,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Political 
Science  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Author  of  "The  Nature  of 
the  State,"  "Social  Justice,"  "The  Rights  and  Duties  of  American  Citi- 
zenship," etc.  Crown,  8vo.  308  pages.  $2.00  net. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

Fourth  Avenue  and  3Oth  Street,  New  York. 


Readings  on  the  Relation  of  Government 
to  Property  and  Industry 

Edited  by  SAMUEL  P.  ORTH,  Cornell  University.    664  pages,  $2.25 

This  is  a  timely  book  on  a  topic  of  the  most  vital  concern  to-day. 
Many  of  the  important  writings  on  the  subject  are  frequently  referred  to, 
yet  heretofore  the  student  has  been  compelled  to  search  the  files  of  the 
law  reviews,  the  publications  of  the  learned  societies,  and  government 
documents. 

Selected  Readings  in  Rural  Economics 

Compiled  by  THOMAS  NIXON  CARVER,  Harvard  University.    947  pages,  $2.80 

Excellent  material  ordinarily  difficult  of  access,  and  representing  the 
authorship  of  many  leading  authorities  on  the  subject.  Agricultural  His- 
tory, Land  Tenure,  The  Farmer's  Business,  Agrarian  Movements,  Rural 
Organization  and  Marketing,  and  Agricultural  Policy  are  among  the  sub- 
jects discussed  at  length. 

Trusts,  Pools  and  Corporations 

Edited  by  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLEY,  Harvard  University.    872  pages,  $2.75 

About  400  pages  of  new  material  have  been  added  to  the  Revised 
Edition  of  this  well-known  book.  Among  the  recent  cases  discussed  are 
the  National  Cash  Register  Case ;  the  Steel  Corporation  Case  of  June, 
1915 ;  and  the  Keystone  Watch  Decision. 

The  Hague  Arbitration  Cases 

By  GEORGE  GRAFTON  WILSON,  Harvard  University.     525  pages,  $3.50 

The  first  book  to  supply  the  essential  material,  hitherto  so  frequently 
in  demand,  yet  difficult  to  find,  on  the  work  of  the  Hague  Court  since  its 
establishment  in  1899. 

The  Growth  of  American  State  Constitutions 

By  JAMES  QUAYLE  DEALEY,  Brown  University.     308  pages,  $1.40 

Part  I  traces  the  history  of  our  state  constitutions.  Part  II  discusses 
the  provisions  of  the  constitutions  now  in  force.  Part  III  suggests  the 
probable  trend  of  future  constitutional  changes. 

GINN  AND  COMPANY 

Boston  New  "Yorh  CHicag'o  London 


Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

edited  by 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 

VOLUME  I,  1891-92.    2nd  Ed.,  1897.    396  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $2.50. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem.    A  Study  In  Statistics. 

By  WALTER  F.  WILLCOX,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

9.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration  In  the  United  States,  from  Colonial 
Times  to  the  McKlnley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  JOHN  DRAM  Goss,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i .00. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  GEORCB  ASHTON  BLACK,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLES  H.  J.  DOUGLAS.  Ph.D.    Pric«,  f  i.oo. 

VOLUME  II,  1892-93.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [5]  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Village. 

By  ISAAC  A.  HOURWICH,  Ph.D.    (Out  of  print). 

8.  [6]  Bankruptcy.    A  Study  in  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  SAMUKL  W.  DUNSCOMB,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

8.  [7]  Special  Assessments  ;  A  Study  In  Municipal  Finance. 

By  VICTOR  ROSBWATBR,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1898.     Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  III,  1893.    465  pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  [8]  "History  of  Elections  In  American  Colonies. 

By  CORTLAND  F.  BISHOP,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00,  cloth. 
3.  [9]  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  GKORGE  L.  BEER,  A.M.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.    438pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1O1  Financial  History  of  Virginia.  By  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLBY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

1  l]*The  Inheritance  Tax.          By  MAX  WEST,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1908.    Price,  $3.00. 
12]  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont. 

By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.    498  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [13]  Double  Taxation  in  the  United  States. 

By  FRANCIS  WALKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
3.  [141  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Powers. 

By  WILLIAM  BONDY,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

8.  [151  Municipal  Government  In  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  DELOS  F.  WILCOX.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  VI,  1896.    601  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50 ;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

[16]  History  of  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania. 

By  WILLIAM  ROBERT  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  VII,  1896.    512  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [17]  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  to  Commonwealth  Gov- 
ernment In  Massachusetts.  By  HARRY  A.  GUSHING,  Ph.D.  Price,  $2.00. 

9.  [  18]*Speculatlon  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchanges  of  the  United  States 

By  HENRY  CROSBY  EMERY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  Vni,  1896-98.    551  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [19]  The  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  over  Recon- 
struction. By  CHARLES  EKNBST  CHADSBY,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [2O]  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  State  Educational  Administra- 
tion. By  WILLIAM  CLARENCE  WEBSTER,  Ph.D.  Price,  75  cents. 

3.  [31]  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

By  FRANCIS  R.  STARK,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

4.  [22]  Public  Administration  In  Massachusetts.    The  Relation  of  Central 

to  Local  Activity.  By  ROBERT  HARVBY  WHITTBN,  Ph.D.    Price,  ji.oo. 

VOLUME  IX,  1897-98.    617  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [33]  'English  Local  Government  of  To-day.    A  Study  of  the  Relations  of 

Central  and  Local  Government.  By  MILO  ROY  MALTBIB,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

2.  [24]  German  Wage  Theories.    A  History  of  their  Development. 

By  JAMES  W.  CROOK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [25]  The  Centralization  of  Administration  In  New  York  State. 

By  JOHN  ARCHIBALD  FAIRLIE,  Ph.D,    Price,  $1.00. 


fcf 

*.  I 


VOLUME  X,  1898-99.    409  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [86]  Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Sympathetic  Lockouts. 

By  FRED  S.  HALL.  Ph.D.    Price  Ji  oo 

2.  [27]  'Rhode  Island  and  the  Formation  of  Ihe  Union. 

By  FRANK  GREENS  BATES.  Ph.D.     Price.  Jt  50 

8.  [28].  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  Laws  In  the  American  Coim 
monwealths.  By  CLEMKNT  MOORE  LACBY  SITES,  Ph.D.     Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.    495  pp.    Price,  cloth,  4.00;  paper  covers,  $3.50. 

[*9]  The  Growth  of  Cities.  By  ADNA  FERRIN  WRPSR  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XII,  1899-1900.    586  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [3O]  History  and  Functions  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  WILLIAM  MAXWELL  BURKE,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
2-  [31.]  Colonial  Immigration  Laws. 

By  EDWARD  EMBRSON  PROPER,  A.M.     Price,  75  centt. 
8.  [33]  History  of  Military  Pension  Legislation  in  tlie  United  States. 

By  WILLIAM  HKNRY  GLASSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 
4.  [33]  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau. 

By  CHARLES  t.  MBKKIAM,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XIH,  1901.    570  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [34]  The  Legal  Property  Relations  of  Married  Parties. 

By  ISIDOK  LOBB,  Ph.D.    Price,  ti.yt. 

2.  [35]  Political  Natlvism  In  New  York  State. 

By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.     Price.  $2.00. 
8.  [38]  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.        By  EDWIN  C.  WOOLLET,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.    576  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [87]  Loyallsm  In  New  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  ALEXANDER  CLARENCK  FLICK,  Ph.D.    Price.  $3.00. 

2.  [38]  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insurance. 

By  ALLAN  H.  WILLBTT,  Ph.D.    Price,  f 1.50. 
8.  [39]  The  Eastern  Question:  A  Study  In  Diplomacy. 

By  STEPHEN  P.  H.  DUGGAN.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XV,  1902.    427  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  Paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[4O]  Crime  In  Its  Relation  to  Social  Progress.       By  ARTHUR  CLEVELAND  HALL,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XVI,  1902-1903.    547  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [41]  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  in  Japan. 

By  YKTARO  KINOSITA,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [43]  The  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Clothing  Trade. 

By  MABEL  HURD  WILLET,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 
8.  [43]  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  Ohio. 

By  SAMUEL  P.  ORTH,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XVH,  1903.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [44]  'Centralizing  Tendencies  In  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  WILLIAM  A.  RAWLES,  Ph.D.     Price,  ft.so. 

2.  [46]  Principles  of  Justice  In  Taxation.    By  STEPHEN  F.  WESTON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XVIII,  1903.    753  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [46]  The  Administration  of  lows.       By  HAROLD  MARTIN  BOWMAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi. 50. 

2.  [47]  Turgot  and  the  Six  Edicts.  By  ROBERT  P.  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D.    Price,  f 1.50. 
8.  148]  Hanover  and  Prussia,  1795-18O3.       By  GUY  STANTON  FORD,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.oo. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.    588  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [491  Joslah  Tucker,  Economist.  By  WALTER  ERNEST  CLARK.  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.50. 

2.  [6OJ  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Labor  Theory  of  Value  In  English  Polit- 

ical Economy.  By  ALBERT  C.  WHITAJCBR,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [SI]  Trade  Unions  and  the  Law  In  New  York. 

By  GEORGE  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  XX,  1904.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth.  $3.50. 

1.  [52]  The  Office  of  the  Justice  of  the  Pence  In  England. 

By  CHARLES  AUSTIN  BEARD,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.so. 

8.  [53]  A  History  of  Military  Government  In  Newly  Acquired  Territory  of 
the  United  States.  By  DAVID  Y.  THOMAS,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.oo. 

VOLUME  XXI,  1904.    746  pp.    Price,  cloth,  f  4.50. 

1.  [54]  ^Treaties,  their  Making  and  Enforcement. 

By  SAMUEL  B.  CRANDAIJL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [55]  The  Sociology  of  a  New  York  City  Block. 

By  THOMAS  JESSE  JONES,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

8.  [56]  Pre-Malthuslan  Doctrines  of  Popu>atlon 

By  CHARLBS  E.  STANGBLAND,  Ph.D.    Price,  $8.50. 


VOLUME  XXII,  1905.    520  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50 ;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[57]  The  Historical  Development  of  tlie  Poor  Law  of  Connecticut. 

By  EDWARD  W.  CAPBN,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XXIII,  1905.    594  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [58J  The  Economics  of  Laud  Tenure  In  Georgia. 

By  ENOCH  MARVIN  BANKS,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 
a.  [59]  Mistake  In  Contract.    A  Study  In  Comparative  Jurisprudence. 

By  EDWIN  C.  McKKAG,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  i.oo. 

3.  [6O]  Combination  In  the  Mining:  Industry. 

By  HBNRY  R.  MUSSBT,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

4.  [61]  The  English  Craft  Guilds  and  the  Government. 

By  STELLA  KRAMER.  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XXIV,  1905.    521  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [68]  The  Place  of  Magic  in  the  Intellectual  History  of  Europe. 

By  LYNN  THORNDIKH,  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.00. 
3.  [63]  The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodoslan  Code. 

By  WILLIAM  K.  BOYD,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.co. 
3.  [64]  "The  International  Position  of  Japan  as  a  Great  Power. 

By  SEIJI  G.  HISHIDA,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXV,  1906-07.    600  pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  [65]  'Municipal  Control  of  Public  Utilities. 

By  O.  L.  POND,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 
8.  [66]  The  Budget  in  the  American  Commonwealths. 

By  EUGBNB  E.  AGGER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 
3.  [67]  The  Finances  of  Cleveland.  By  CHARLES  C.  WILLIAMSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  fa.oo. 

VOLUME  XXVI,  1917.    559  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [68]  Trade  and  Currency  In  Early  Oregon. 

By  JAMES  H.  GILBERT,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 
8.  [69]  Luther's  Table  Talk.  By  PKBSBRVBD  SMITH,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

3.  [7O]  The  Tobacco  Industry  In  the  United  States. 

By  MBYBR  JACOMTBIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

4.  [71]  Social  Democracy  and  Population. 

By  ALVAN  A.  TBNNBY,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  XXVII,  1907.    578  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [78]  The  Economic  Policy  of  Robert  Walpole. 

By  NORRIS  A.  BBISCO,  Ph.D.    Prict,  $1.50. 
8.  [78]  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation. 

By  ABRAHAM  BURGLUKD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [74]  The  Taxation  of  Corporations  in  Massachusetts. 

By  HARRY  G.  FRIEDMAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  £1.50. 

VOLUME  XXVIII.  1907.    564  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [75]  DeWltt  Clinton  and  the  Origin  of  the  Spoils  System  in  New  York. 

By  HOWARD  LEE  McBAiN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

9.  [76]  The  Development  of  the  Legislature  of  Colonial  Virginia. 

By  ELMBR  I.  MILLER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 
8.  [77]  The  Distribution  of  Ownership. 

By  JOSEPH  HARDING  UNDBRWOOD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 


VOLUME  XXIX,  1908.    703  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

t'ly  New  England  Towns.  By  AN 

79 j  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province. 


1.  [78]  Early  New  England  Towns.  By  ANNB  BUSH  MACLBAK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [79]  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province. 

By  WILLIAM  H.  TRY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  XXX,  1908.    712  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50  ;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

[8O]  The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664—1738.  By  EDWIN  P.  TANNBK,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXT,  1908.    575  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [81]  Private  Freight  Cars  and  American  Railroads. 

By  L.  D.  H.  WBLD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  f881  Ohio  before  185O.  By  ROBERT  E.  CHADDOCK,  Ph.D.    Price,  11.50. 

8.  [83]  Consanguineous  Marriages  In  the  American  Population. 

By  GBORGB  B.  Louis  ARNBR,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 
4.  [84]  Adolphe  Quetelet  as  Statistician.       By  FRANK  H.  HANKINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  XXXII,  1908.    705  pp.    Price,  cloth,  4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

85]  The  Enforcement  of  the  Statutes  of  Laborers. 

By  BBRTHA  HAVEN  PUTNAM,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXIH,  1908-1909.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [86]  Factory  Legislation  in  Maine.    u  By  E.  STAGG  WHITIN.A.B.    Price,$i.oo. 

8.  [87]  'Psychological  Interpretations  of  Society. 

By  MICHAEL  M.  DAVIS,  Jr.,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 
3.  [88]  *An  Introduction  to  the  Sources  relating  to  the  Germanic  Invasions. 

By  CARLTON  HUNTLBY  HAYES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 


VOLUME  XXXIV,  1909.    628  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [89]  Transportation  and  Industrial  Development  In  the  Middle  West. 

By  WILLIAM  F.  GKPHART,  Ph.D.    Price,  ia.o*. 
t.  [9O]  Social  Reform  and  the  Reformation. 

By  JACOB  SALWYK  SCHAPIKO,  Ph.D.    Price.  $ i.«s. 
8.  [91]  Responsibility  for  Crime.  By  PHILIP  A.  PARSONS,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.jo. 

VOLUME  XXXV,  1909.    568  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [9»]  The  Conflict  over  the  Judicial  Powers  In  the  United  States  to  187O. 

By  CHARLES  GKOVB  HAINRS.  Ph.D.    Price.  *i. so. 
S.  [93]  A  Study  of  the  Population  of  Manhattan vllle. 

By  HOWARD  BROWN  WOOLS-TON.  Ph.D.    Price,  ti. as. 
8.  [94]  *  Divorce:  A  Study  In  Social  Causation. 

By  JAMBS  P.  LICHTBNBKRGBR,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXVI,  1910.    542  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [95]  'Reconstruction  In  Texas.     By  CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDELL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.30. 

2.  [96]  *  The  Transition  In  Virginia  from  Colony  to  Common  wealth. 

By  CHARLES  RAMSDBLL  LINCLBY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXVn.  1910.    606  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [97]  Standards  of  Reasonableness  In  Local  Freight  Discriminations. 

By  JOHN  MAURICE  CLARK,  Ph.D.    Price.  |i.«$. 

2.  [98]  Legal  Development  In  Colonial  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLES  J.  HILKBT,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.ic. 
8.  [99]  *  Social  and  Mental  Traits  of  the  Negro. 

By  HOWARD  W.  ODUM,  Ph.D.    Pri«e,  f*.o«. 

VOLUME  XXXVin,  1910.    463  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [1OO1  The  Public  Domain  and  Democracy. 

By  ROBERT  TUDOR  HILL,  Ph.D.  Price,  fe.oo. 
8.  [1O1]  Organlsmlo  Theories  of  the  State. 

By  FRANCIS  W.  COKBR,  Ph.D.  Price,  f  x.fo. 

VOLUME  XXXIX,  1910-1911.    651  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O2]  The  Making  of  the  Balkan  States. 

By  WILLIAM  SMITH  MURRAY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.59. 

8.  [1O3]  Political  History  of  New  York  State  during  the  Period  of  the  Civil 
'War*  By  SIDNEY  DAVID  BRUMMER,  Ph.  D.    Price,  3.00. 

VOLUME  XL,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O4]  A  Survey  of  Constitutional  Development  in  China. 

By  HAWKLINC  L.  YEN,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 
».  [1O5]  Ohio  Politics  during  the  Civil  War  Period. 

By  GBORGB  H.  PORTER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

8.  [1O6]  The  Territorial  Basis  of  Government  under  the  State  Constitutions. 

By  ALFRED  ZANTZINGBR  RBBD,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  1.75. 

VOLUME  XLI,  1911.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[1O7]  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  EDGAR  JACOB  FISHER,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XLIE,  1911.    400pp.    Price.cloth,  $3.00;  paper  covers,  $2.50. 

[1O8]  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in  Labor  Cases. 

By  GEORGE  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLHI,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O9]  'Industrial  Causes  of  Congestion  of  Population  In  New  York  City. 

By  EDWARD  EWING  PRATT,  Ph.D.    Price,  f«.oo. 
».  [11OJ  Education  and  the  Mores.  By  F.  STUART  CHAPIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

8.  [Ill]  The  British  Consuls  in  the  Confederacy.     , 

By  MILLBDGB  L.  BONHAM,  JR.,  Ph.D.    Price,  fs.o*. 

VOLUMES  XLIV  and  XLV,  1911.    745  pp. 
Price  for  the  two  volumes,  cloth,  $6.00  ;  paper  covers,  $5.00. 

[118  and  1131  The  Economic  Principles  of  Confucius  and  his  School. 

By  CHKN  HUAN-CHANO,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLVI,  1911-1912.    623pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [114]  The  Rlcardian  Socialists.  BY  ESTHER  LOWBNTHAL.  Ph.D.    Price.fi.o* 

9.  [116J  Ibrahim  Pasha,  Grand  Vizier  of  Suleiman,  the  Magnificent. 

BY  HBITKK  DONALDSON  JENKINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  i.oo. 

3.  [116]  *Syndlcalism  in  France.  __, 

BY  Louis  LKVINB,  Ph.D.    Second  edition,  1914.    Price,  £1.50. 

4.  [117]    A  Hoo«ler  Village.  BT  NBWM.L  LKROY  SIMS,  Ph.D.    Price.  $1.50. 


VOLUME  XLVII,  1912.    544  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [118]  The  Politics  of  Michigan,  1865-1878, 

BY  HARRIETTE  M.  DILLA,  Ph.D.    Price,  $a.oo. 
8.  [119]  *The  United  States  Beet  Sugar  Industry  and  the  Tariff. 

BY  ROT  G.  BLAKBY,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  XLVin,  1912.    493  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [ISO]  Isidor  of  Seville.  BY  ERNEST  BRBHAUT,  Ph.  D.    Pric*.  fa.oo. 

8.  [121]  Progress  and  Uniformityin  Child-Labor  Legislation. 

By  WILLIAM  FIELDING  OGBURN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $  1.75. 

VOLUME  XLIX,  1912.    592  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  FIBS]  British  Radicalism  1791-1797.  BY  WALTER  PHBLPS  HALL.    Price,  f ».oo. 

8.  [193]  A  Comparative  Study  of  the  Law  of  Corporations. 

BY  ARTHUR  K.  Kuan,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.jo. 
8.  [184]  *The  Negro  at  Work  in  New  York  City. 

BY  GBORGB  £.  HAYNES.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  L,  1911.    481  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [185]  *The  Spirit  of  Chinese  Philanthropy.      ?BY  YAI  YUE  Tsn.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
8.  [186]  *The  Alien  In  China.  BY  Vi.  KYUIN  WELLINGTON  Koo,  Ph.D.    Price,  $*.y>. 

VOLUME  LI,  1912.    4to.  Atlas.    Price:  cloth,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $1.00. 

1.  [197]  The  Sale  of  Liquor  in  the  South. 

BY  LBONARD  S.  BLAKBY,  P'  D. 

VOLUME  LH,  1912.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [198]  *Provlnoial  and  Local  Taxation  in  Canada. 

BY  SOLOMON  VIXBBBRC,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 
8.  [189]  *The  Distribution  of  Income. 

By  FRANK  HATCH  STRRIOHTOPF,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [ISO]  "The  Finances  of  Vermont.  By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    Price,  £1.00. 

VOLUME  LIII,  1913.    789  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[131]  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  in  Florida.       '.By  W.  W.  DAVM,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIV,  1913.    604pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [138]    *  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States. 

By  ARNOLD  JOHNSON  LIEN,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

9.  [133]    The  Supreme  Court  and  Unconstitutional  Legislation. 

By  ELAINE  FREB  MOORE,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

8.  [134]  'Indian  Slavery  in  Colonial  Times  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States.  By  ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  LV,  1913.    665  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [185]    *A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  Tork. 

By  HOMER  A.  STBBBINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  £t£oo. 
8.  [  136]    *The  Early  Persecutions  of  the  Christians. 

ByLsoNH.  CANFIBLD,  Ph.D.    Price,   $1.50. 

VOLUME  LVI,  1913.    406  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [137]  Speculation  on  the  New  Tork  Stock  Exchange,  19O4-19O7. 

By  ALGERNON  ASHBURNER  OSBORNE.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [188]  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  towards  Industrial  Monopoly. 

By  OSWALD  WHITMAN  KNAUTH,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  LVII,  1914.    670  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [139]  *The  Civil  Service  of  Great  Britain. 

By  ROBERT  MOSES,  Ph.D.     Price,  fa.oo. 
8.  [14O]  The  Financial  History  of  New  Tork  State. 

By  DON  C.  SOWERS.     Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  LVIII,  1914.    684  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[141]  Reconstruction  in  North  Carolina. 

By  J.  G.  DB  ROULHAC  HAMILTON,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIX,  1914.    625  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [148]  The  Development  of  Modern  Tnrkey  by  means  of  its  Press. 

By  AHMED  EMIN,  Ph.D.  Price,  f  i.oo. 
t.  [143]  The  System  of  Taxation  in  China,  1614-1911. 

l(y  SHAO-KWAN  CHEN,  Ph.  D.  Price,  f  x.oo. 

8.  [144]  The  Currency  Problem  In  China.  By  WEN  PIN  WEI,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.25. 

4.  [146]  Me  wish  Immigration  to  the  United  States. 

By  SAMUEL  JOSEPH,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 


VOLUME  IX,  1 9 1 4.    516  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [146]  "Constantino  the  Great  and  Christianity. 

By  CHRISTOPHER  BUSH  COLKMAN,  Ph.D.     Price,  #2.00. 

3.  [147]  The  Establishment   of  Christianity   and   the  Proscription  of  Pa- 
ganism. By  MAUD  ALINR  HUTTMANN,  Ph.D.  Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  LXI,  1914.    496pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [148]  *The  Railway  Conductors:  A  Study  In  Organized  Labor. 

By  EDWIN  CLYDE  RUBBINS.     Price,  fi.jo. 

3.  [149]  *The  Finances  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

By  YIM-CH'U  MA,  Ph.D.     Price.  $3.50. 

VOLUME  LXII,  1914.    414  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

[15O]  The  Journal  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Fifteen  on  Reconstruction, 
89th  Congress,  1865—1867.  By  BENJAMIN  B.  K.BNDKicK,Ph.O.    Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  LXIIL,  1915.    561pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1        611  Emlle  Durkhelm's  Contributions  to  Sociological  Theory. 

By  CHARLES  ELMKK  GEHLKB,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [153]  The  Nationalization  of  Railways  In  Japan. 

By  1'osHiHARU  WATARAI,  Ph.D.    Price,  >i.»s. 

3.  [153]  Population:  A  Study  In  Mai  thus  laulsm. 

By  WARRBN  S.  THOMPSON,  Ph.D.    Price  51.75. 

VOLUME  LXIV,  1915.    646  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [154]  'Reconstruction  In  Georgia.      By.  C.  MILDRED  THOMPSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $3.00. 

2.  [155]  "The    Review   of  American   Colonial   Legislation   by   the  King  In 

Council.  By  ELMKK  BBBCHER  RUSSELL,  Ph.D.     Price.  £1.75. 

VOLUME  LXV,  1915.    496  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [1561  *The  Sovereign  Council  of  New  France. 

By  RAYMOND  Du  Bois  CAHALL,  Ph.D.     Price,  fa. 25. 

3.  [157]  "Scientific  Management.      By  HORACE  EOOKWALTBR  DRURY,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  1.75 

VOLUME  LXVI,  1915.    655  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

I.  [158]  *The  Recognition  Policy  of  the  United  States. 

By  JULIUS  GOBBBL,  JR.,  Ph  D.     Price,  Ja.oo. 

3.  [159]  Railway  Problems  In  China.  By  CHIH  Hsu,  Ph.D.    Price,  fx. 50 

8.  116O]  *The  Boxer  Rebellion.  By  PAUL  H.  CLEMENTS.  Ph.D.     Price,  $v.oo. 

VOLUME  LXVII,  1916.    538pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [161]  "Russian  Sociology.  By  JULIUS  F.  HBCKBR,  Ph.D.    Prict,  fa. 50. 

3.  1 163J  State  Regulation  of  Railroads  In  the  South. 

By  MAXWELL  FERGUSON,  A  M.,  LL.B.      Price,  $1.75 

VOLUME  LXVIII,  1916.    518  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

[163]  The  Origins  of  the  Islamic  State.        By  PHILIP  K.  Him,  Ph.D.    Pnce,  #4.00. 

VOLUME  LXIX,  1916.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth.  $4.00. 

1.  [164]  Railway  Monopoly  and  Rate  RegnJatlon. 

By  ROBFRT  J.  McFALL.  Ph.D.     Price,  fa.oa. 
3.  [165]  The  Butter  Industry  In  the  United  States. 

By  EDWARD  WIEST,  Ph.D.     Price,  fa.oo. 


VOLUME  LXX,  1916.    540  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

[166]  Mohammedan  Theories  of  Finance. 

By  NICOLAS  P.  AGHNIDKS,  Ph.D.     Price,  $4.00. 

VOLUME  LXXI.    1916.    476  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [1671  The  Commerce  of  Louisiana  during  the  French  Regime.  1699r1763. 

By  N.  M.  MILLER  SURREY,  Ph.D.     Price,  £3.50. 

VOLUME  LXXII.    1916.    542pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [168]  American  Men  of  Letters:  Their  Nature  and  Nurture. 

By  EDWIN  LBAVITT  CLARKE,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [  169]  The  Tariff  Problem  In  China.  By  CHIN  CHU,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [170]  The  Marketing  of  Perishable  Food  Products^  ^^  ^     ^  ^ 

VOLUME  LXXIII.    1916.    616  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [171]  *The  Social  and  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Chartist  Movement. 

By  PRANK  f.  ROSENBLATT,  Ph  D.     Price,  $2.00 

2.  [173]  *The  Decline  of  the  Chartist  Movement. 

By  PRESTON  WILLIAM  SLOSSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [173]  Chartism  and  the  Churches.  By  H.  U.  FAULKNER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  LXXIV.    1917.    546  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [174]  The  Rise  of  Ecclesiastical  Contort  fognebeo.^^  ph  D     Prjce  $t  y$ 


3.  [176]  Collective  Bargaining  In  the 

VOLUME  LXXV.    1917.    410  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

An  extra-Illustrated  and  bound  volume  Is  published  at  $5.OO. 

1.  [177]  New 

3.  [178]  New  York  as  an  . 

VOLUME  LXXVI.    1917.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [179]  *Economlc  and  Social  History  of  Ch^w^n^ounty^NorUi  Carolina. 
8.  [180]  Separation  of  State  and  Local 


VOLUME  LXXVII.    1917. 

[181]  The  Decline  of  Aristocracy  In  the  Politics  o^New^York. 


Tht  prlee  for  each  separate  monograph  is  for  paper-covered  copies;  separate  monographs  marked*,  can 
be  supplied  bound  In  cloth,  for  50c.  additional.    All  prices  are  net. 


The  set  of  seventy-six  volumes,  covering  monographs  1-180,  Is  offered,  bound,  for  $258:  except  that 
Volume  II  can  be  supplied  only  in  part,  and  in  paper  covers,  no.  1  of  that  volume  being  out  of  print. 
Volumes  III,  IV  and  XXV,  can  now  be  supplied  only  In  connection  with  complete  sets. 


For  further  information,  apply  to 

Prof.  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  Columbia  University, 

or  to  Messrs.  LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  New  York. 
London:  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Ltd.,  Orchard  House,  Westminster. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


>07n-5,'64(E5474s8)9482 


